Couple loses at VCAT over Lifetime QF Club card allegedly issued in error

[p--and--t]

Agree, and in this case the recipient (OK the recipient's husband for the lawyers) did query it and were re-assured.

But that was not the main point of my original comment, which was Qantas were just dumb.

Allegedly 80,000 (not confirmed by any official source) cards were posted incorrectly.

How many were false lifetimes, no idea. However , if a precedent was set of giving the equivalent of ~$10k value away for the error for each and every erroneous card sent then it would create a potential liability of hundreds of millions when there was no basis for the claim in the first place.

 

[Quickstatus]

but then offered double this plus points on the day of the hearing

I wonder though if this lead the plaintiff to think that the airline's increased offer at the last minute was a hint that the airline legal position was weak ?

 

[drron]

The customers should have been eligible for any extension offered to any other Qantas Club member due to covid.

Aside from that, there was no ‘loss’ to the customer… unless they could have demonstrated they passed up some other deal which would have allowed them to discount future Qantas Club membership. (On the basis they didn’t need to take up that offer because they thought they were lifetime members.)

But they did extend her status. She was NB in December 2018 and still NB in 2021. Just like me.

 

[Vic]

If a bank accidentally put a large sum of money in your account and then took it back the magnanimous compensatory offer would equal to at least $0.00.

If you used any of that money you would be pursued until every last cent was returned.

It appears QF did not ask for any compensation for the unfounded time wasting costly claim against the company and made a generous offer that they did not have to make YMMV

Already answer this false analogy.
What if the bank said the money was your money, you won a prize, when queried.
I'm all for analogy, but they need to be relevant and applicable.

The customers should have been eligible for any extension offered to any other Qantas Club member due to covid.

Aside from that, there was no ‘loss’ to the customer… unless they could have demonstrated they passed up some other deal which would have allowed them to discount future Qantas Club membership. (On the basis they didn’t need to take up that offer because they thought they were lifetime members.)

There would have been a loss if they were made to pay an application fee due to Qantas' error. Yes, this did not happen.

It seems looks like this speculation about a loss ignores the basis for the VCAT judgement.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Already answer this false analogy.
What if the bank said the money was your money, you won a prize, when queried.
I'm all for analogy, but they need to be relevant and applicable.

The “bank account holder” didn’t contact QF at any time querying her new Lifetime status.
Her partner contacted them asking why he wasn’t Lifetime 3 months later upon receipt of his card.
She didn’t contact them until QF told her the card was expired/ the large sum of money missing from her account.

It might be splitting hairs but there’s a lot of that going around on many posts.

 

[p--and--t]

Already answer this false analogy.
What if the bank said the money was your money, you won a prize, when queried.
I'm all for analogy, but they need to be relevant and applicable.

According to the official transcript from VCAT - at no time did SHE receive advice from QF she had won a prize after SHE queried why SHE did not have access.

What may or may not have been discussed between the husband regarding his personal circumstances and an agent who would not have permission to check HER account status would surely be irrelevant to the woman's case.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

But they did extend her status. She was NB in December 2018 and still NB in 2021. Just like me.

I believe the correct terminology is Lifetime Bronze, a status I achieved in November 2012 without having to pay the $100 enrolment fee for the perk!

There would have been a loss if they were made to pay an application fee due to Qantas' error. Yes, this did not happen.

It seems looks like this speculation about a loss ignores the basis for the VCAT judgement.

The closest analogy I can think of to this "error" with Lifetime Qantas Pub status would be the rare instances where an airline issues an error fare such as charging $300 return for SYD to HNL in J on QF. Now I'm not sure how VCAT, ACCC and other regulatory bodies rule on these issues but would reckon that they would likely side with the airline since the error was so egregious that anyone seriously believing the offer was valid should get their head checked. And in those instances you have a contract with Qantas that agrees to take you from point A to point B in business class at the specified price. In this case, the claimants don't even have that contractual element.

-RooFlyer88

 

[kangarooflyer88]

What may or may not have been discussed between the husband regarding his personal circumstances and an agent who would not have permission to check HER account status would surely be irrelevant to the woman's case.

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that Qantas agents can't check other people's accounts without the permission of the other cardholder, particularly in a husband/wife situation where it is clear the spouse is a companion cardholder. Unless there is specific IT policies that limits an agent from doing so, they could technically do it.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Princess Fiona]

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that Qantas agents can't check other people's accounts without the permission of the other cardholder, particularly in a husband/wife situation where it is clear the spouse is a companion cardholder. Unless there is specific IT policies that limits an agent from doing so, they could technically do it.

-RooFlyer88

There are specific policies. You need to give someone authority to access your account.

 

[mrsterryn]

Deleted

 

[RooFlyer]

If a bank accidentally put a large sum of money in your account and then took it back the magnanimous compensatory offer would equal to at least $0.00.

If you used any of that money you would be pursued until every last cent was returned.

A better bank analogy would be if a bank posts you a $100 cheque; you or+1 calls the bank call centre and asks "did the Bank just give me $100?" Call Centre person laughs snd replies. "No you just won the lottery". You then hang onto the cheque for about one or two years before having heard nothing except what the call centre told you, you go to the teller to put it into your account and the teller refuses. In the meantime, the bank has done nothing about trying to retrieve its cheque.

I know, that’s not perfect either but it's a better illustration of the relationship between 1) receipt of potential benefit, 2) attempted use of benefit and 3) the time the giver took to reverse the wrongful benefit.

in this case, I would have expected the bank to be appreciative that the customer proactively called it to check about legitimacy of receiving the cheque but of course promptly cancelled the check when it realised that it was out there. I would also expect that someone in the bank would be very embarrassed that they hadn’t noticed that the cheque had been been issued and no one realised for such a long time!

 

[RichardMEL]

Why the customer is upset, how the error happened, can we agree on a mutually acceptable resolution? A whole heap of things. You're posts are usually very thoughtful and consider multiple aspects of issues. I'm shocked that you have to ask the question, in this case

Well, they couldn't agree on a mutually acceptable resolution because both QF's offers were rejected and thus they took QF to VCAT. OK yes, the 2nd offer was made on the day of the hearing, so they'd already raised the case with VCAT. So the first offer was rejected prior.

I mean you make it sound like QF didn't do anything to address the complaint (when raised in April 2021, as I noted from the VCAT claim). QF didn't do anything acceptable to the claimant - but that's a totally different thing.

QF didn't admit to why the error happened but do many big companies show any transparency in what really happened with screw ups? I'm not saying this is right - I'd personally love more transparency - but in a way does the reason for the error even matter? it's about how it was handled I think that matters at this point.

And so I'm in stunning agreement with you that they did not, it seems, handle this well. At the very least this alleged call in 2019 between the husband and QF as has been gone over ad naseum. It does though appear QF did have "multiple discussions" (again from the claim) between April and June 2021. There's nothing saying QF didn't apologise or try to see why the customer was upset etc. There's also nothing to say that they didn't.. so we don't really know.

As for the rest of your post you seem to be responding to the news reporting, not my post. The only point I'll raises is to refer you to paragraph 6 of the judgement where the complainant contacted qantas in 2019 to query...
Otherwise, the reporting in the story got nothing to do with me.

No. I was responding quite directly to your comments

I don't consider a derisory offer to be engagement.

Qantas did not appear to attempt to discuss the issues with the complainant. Just we'll throw a bone at you to make you shut up...

by showing from from the actual VCAT claim(and NOT the news reporting) that QF *did* discuss the issues with them ("After a series of telephone conversations between Qantas club staff, Mr Wilson and Qantas Customer Service the applicant was informed that her membership had expired." - it's unclear who initiated these "series" of telephone conversations, but it's implied to me at least that QF did respond - hence a "series of conversations" - and thus an attempt was made to discuss the issues.

Now you feel that the offer made (ie the first offer of discounted rejoin fee) was "derisory" and that's fine as an opinion goes - but without the series of discussions the offer would not be made. Further, QF made another offer (the four years) and this was again rejected by the claimaint - as is their right.. but that's hardly a bone - most people here seem to agree that's pretty generous. You may not of course - but our value judgements of compensation offers don't. diminish that clear discussions were had and efforts were made by QF.

Further I'm unsure why you're pointing to the 2019 call in releation to QF's "bone throwing" because that wasn't until 2021 when they raised the issue with QF. The relevance of the 2019 call is of course to establish they felt they had an entitltment to it at that point (once can dispute this, but I can personally accept that a reasonable person would have taken it as agreement from a company rep that the lifetime membership was good. At any rate at that point in time no offers were made because they didn't contest this - even though the main card holder - the husband - had a card and membership showing a correct expiry date. It doesn't appear from the claim that this was contested post being (allegedly) advised that the partner card was lifetime due to a promotion or draw.

imo.

 

[RichardMEL]

The “bank account holder” didn’t contact QF at any time querying her new Lifetime status.
Her partner contacted them asking why he wasn’t Lifetime 3 months later upon receipt of his card.
She didn’t contact them until QF told her the card was expired/ the large sum of money missing from her account.

It might be splitting hairs but there’s a lot of that going around on many posts.

And this becomes very important imo because the Husband was the primary card holder (I mean QC member) in this scenario. So if you like her status was attached to his. So they appeared to accept that hers was (allegedly) lifetime, but his wasn't? how does this pass a sniff test? I mean they said in the claim they didn't dispute this until she was refused entry in April, 2021.

Yes he phoned to query why HE wasn't lifetime too - which makes perfect sense in the context of it being his membership - but the way the claim reads they accepted the scenario that he wasn't lifetime but she was - because they didn't apparently do anything further...

.. UNLESS this is what they meant by the "many months" dealing with QF complaint resolution without result - but either the VCAT claim detail is poorly written or something's missing because the later comment that they didn't dispute things until her denied entry would seem to contradict a scenario where they were complaining since that call in 2019 without resolution.

So we're still missing detail.

 

[nlagalle]

Have not read through the whole thread but it seems many agree with Qantas, but if the story as related by the claimants is correct Qantas looks pretty dumb to me, especially since (taking the claimant's story at face value)
- they issued a physical card

I don’t think qantas looks dumb, I think the claimants do.

Yes they got a physical card, however did they ever bother to check their online account or digital card before just assuming the printed card was correct??

Why didn’t the wife call up herself? Why was it the husband?

So many holes here and to me it seems they thought they’d got lucky..

 

[RichardMEL]

I don’t think qantas looks dumb, I think the claimants do.

Yes they got a physical card, however did they ever bother to check their online account or digital card before just assuming the printed card was correct??

Why didn’t the wife call up herself? Why was it the husband?

So many holes here and to me it seems they thought they’d got lucky..

Well yes absolutely more than a few holes here.

I'll play devil's advocate though and assume I'm an infrequent flyer - it may not have occured to them to look at online ccount or digital card. I mentioned upthread that the BP probably would have also shown "QC" or, in this case by 2021, no "QC" but this may also not have been noticed (I'm not sure if QC membership shows on the digital boarding passes or if it does if it is prominent?).

So I can appreciate that non FFers would take the physical card and they did call QF to clarify (which, incidently, makes QF's claims about T&C of the QC program kind of irrelevant - ie in point 27 they(QF) reference 7.3(b) about the obligation to report inconsistencies or discrepencies) - as far as I can tell the account holder (Husband) did this just three months later in March, 2019. so while I think QF was trying to argue that their customer was responsible to review their account on a regular basis and report any problems under this term - calling up to query - even in the context of "My expiry date shows Dec 2019, but my partner's show's lifetime. What's going on?" meets that requirement perfectly).

These things I think need to be taken with the layman's approach (ie "the pub test") of what Jo Average would deem reasonable, It's like someone saying "Why did I get discount business credits when I paid a business class fare" and some comic book guy dude like me coming along and saying "Well you booked in I class and not J or C" - the average punter shouldn't be expected to know that kind of detail). so when I've been trying to interpret this whole thing I've tried to do it not just as an (more) experienced flyer but as that infrequent flyer and what might be a reasonable expectation to have - and I absolutely see it after getting a card, and supposedly being told it was legit.

I take that on board. Why didn't wife call? Well the primary account holder called.. that's reasonable too. At this point though we have a claim of what he was told. While I find it far fetched personally, we've heard all kinds of BS reasons for things made up by (un)informed agents over the years so it's not out of the question - and this was discussed up thread a bit.

Regardless though when it all came to crunch time in 2021 and the paid for membership had rightlfuly expired and the partner was denied then they complained. weren't safisfied with QF's offer and took them to VCAT. here we are.

It seems fairly clear that at the point at which QF made their initial offer it would have been explained to be an error.

I think the handling makes QF look "stupid" or very poor - most definitely the bit about it being a prize in a draw or something - that's the "stupid" right there. However we also have just one person's word fr this - and also as discussed a fair bit upthread, this could be an misunderstanding or a throw away line from whoever he spoke to, or a deliberate spin on whatever he was told. Who knows. Let's go with misunderstanding (seemingly backed up by the fact they did not dispute this further until 2021).

What annoys me about the reporting of this is the clickbaity headline (with obvious bias) such as "Arrogant. When a QANTAS Club 'ifetime' Membership isn't actually for life" - which implies it was something they were entitled to (they were not) and thus it was wrongly taken from them when it was actually wrongly "given" to them - at least on a printed card (and who knows about the online account, but I suspect that was correct given the Husband's correctly issued card shortly after). I guess "Couple lose tribunal case against QANTAS over lifetime membership card issued in error" is just too factual

 

[Vic]

Those claiming the club member did not contact Qantas are just speculating. There is nothing to support your assumption. Having contacted Qantas about my partner's account, I know that it is possible for the husband to ask about the wife's account. Putting that aside, as a number of comments have mentioned, we do not know the details of that conversation. Those who stated there is no evidence that the lifetime expiry was queried with Qantas should also accept that there is no evidence to say it wasn't queried. VCAT made a ruling before such matters even came into consideration.


I see there are many here who are so desperate for me to defend Qantas. Sorry not going to happen, no need to convince me I'm wrong. This couple might be chancers. But the behaviour by Qantas is just part of their overall disrespectful approach to loyalty.

There are specific policies. You need to give someone authority to access your account.

lol
EXACTLY!
How do you, and many others in thread, know they didn't give authority?

 

[p--and--t]

There is one thing about this affair that doesnt quite gel with me and we will probably never know.

Infrequent flyers (or at least naive members who don’t have an basic understanding of the system ) …….

1. wouldn't normally be generating enough points to throw them away on using them to buy lounge access instead of flying or hotel rooms or toasters

2. If you don't fly often, why would you have a need for expenditure on buying lounge access at all for the few times you fly.

And if they are actually frequent flyers enough to warrant buying lounge access for both of them instead of only one and guesting the partner in, then it smells of them just trying to game the system as they would know Lifetime Memberships haven't been available for yonks

 

[Princess Fiona]

Those claiming the club member did not contact Qantas are just speculating. There is nothing to support your assumption. Having contacted Qantas about my partner's account, I know that it is possible for the husband to ask about the wife's account. Putting that aside as a number of comments have mention we do not know the details of that conversation. Those who put out there is no evidence that the lifetime expiry was query with Qantas should also accept that there is no evidence to say it wasn't queried. VCAT made a ruling before such matters even came into consideration.


I see there are many here who are so desperate for me to defend Qantas. Sorry not going to happen, no need to convince me I'm wrong. This couple might be chancers. But the behaviour by Qantas is just part of their overall disrespectful approach to loyalty.

No not speculating. Just referring to the detail from VCAT on AustLi.

Whatever you may have been able to access about your partner’s account on the telephone isn’t relevant to this case.

 

[CaptJCool]

So here’s the other pickle

Qantas Club Gives Another Complimentary 7-Month Extension

Qantas is giving yet another complimentary extension to Qantas Club members. Anyone who had an active membership as of 30 June 2021 will automatically be

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

because the original paid for membership “ran” out, the complainant missed out on at least 4 or more complimentary extensions and would not have been required to pay for at least 18 months if not more.... so what’s a future 20% discount worth ?

Qantas previously ran an offer of 50% off selected Qantas Club memberships in April 2022. And then again in October 2022

Half-Price Qantas Club Offer (October 2022)

For a limited time, Qantas is offering a 50% discount off 1-year Qantas Club memberships - both for new members and on renewals. From 11-17 October 2022,

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

which in light of the hearing and decision Dates were not able to be used by the customer, who knocked back a free 4 years, and then was offered a 20% discount - QF definitely could have eased the pain of defeat... as for the announced $1.5 billion current year profit ....

 

[nlagalle]

Those claiming the club member did not contact Qantas are just speculating. There is nothing to support your assumption.

Then why was it only mentioned the husband called up about it?

Surely if she contacted QF it would have been said in the hearing?? There is also a note in the findings about her not contacting them within 6 months of noting the error