Gift card not activated - financial issuer being dishonest

[odysseus]

We will agree to disagree on interpretation. As far as the T&C’s go, companies are inclusive of use rather than exclusive. Otherwise they’d have to list all retail places in Australia. Think about it.

They wouldn't. All that is required as one example is the word "only," possibly with the addition of permutations.

Much larger, more established players have this sown up already. While this is not saying they need to be super tight, they just come across as sloppy at the moment.

 

[odysseus]

They arent the only shopping centre whose gift cards work elsewhere...

Indeed.

Though perhaps the only ones taking customer unfriendly responses to address this.

 

[Kangol]

I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that they have stored the OP's credit card number which is a strict no-no unless you as a customer authorise it.

Does this constitute fraud? Deception/theft to obtain a financial advantage?
I wonder what law stealing credit card details comes under...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Does this constitute fraud? Deception/theft to obtain a financial advantage?
I wonder what law stealing credit card details comes under...

Have they stolen the credit card details? Have they actually used the details to commit a fraud?

At the moment all we know is that they have a record of the credit card being used for payment. You’re throwing around some pretty big accusations here. Maybe things have changed recently, but in the last it was fairly common place that if you wanted a refund for something, you had to provide the same credit card you used for the original transaction. I would not have considered that to be fraudulent. (But maybe there are new rules in that.)

 

[Kangol]

Have they stolen the credit card details? Have they actually used the details to commit a fraud?

At the moment all we know is that they have a record of the credit card being used for payment. You’re throwing around some pretty big accusations here. Maybe things have changed recently, but in the last it was fairly common place that if you wanted a refund for something, you had to provide the same credit card you used for the original transaction. I would not have considered that to be fraudulent. (But maybe there are new rules in that.)

I don't have the full story besides what has been posted in this thread.
I am not aware of any refund taking place.
Questions are not accusations. For example, you just made an accusation.
Taking credit card details and using those to block future purchases where money has been taken and products not provided is what has been described to an extent previously.

 

[JohnK]

I believe it is $50.

To issue a gift card? Sounds very high.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't have the full story besides what has been posted in this thread.
I am not aware of any refund taking place.
Questions are not accusations. For example, you just made an accusation.
Taking credit card details and using those to block future purchases where money has been taken and products not provided is what has been described to an extent previously.

Wondering which law ‘stealing credit card details comes under’ is akin to saying they have stolen the credit card details, and it’s only a matter determining which law they have breached.

We don’t know the details. I doubt there is any mal intent here. If they have breached a law it may be inadvertent rather than malicious. Consumer Affairs in Victoria will provide your neighbour with free advice, or at least be able to direct the enquiry to the appropriate party.

 

[kapook]

To issue a gift card? Sounds very high.

Not to issue a gift card but to refund the money via bank transfer for a blocked card.

 

[JohnK]

Not to issue a gift card but to refund the money via bank transfer for a blocked card.

That's the charge but surely not the actual cost to the business?

 

[kapook]

That's the charge but surely not the actual cost to the business?

They described it as an admin charge. they costed it at $50 i suppose.

 

[Vic]

Have they stolen the credit card details? Have they actually used the details to commit a fraud?

Well they have taken the customer's money know full well they where never going to provide the purchased goods. Obtaining money by deception.

 

[kapook]

Well they have taken the customer's money know full well they where never going to provide the purchased goods. Obtaining money by deception.

Perfect case for chargeback `goods paid for but not delivered`

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well they have taken the customer's money know full well they where never going to provide the purchased goods. Obtaining money by deception.

The customer purchased a gift card. The exact details are not clear... could have been at a discount perhaps? (otherwise it’s a bit difficult to imagine why you’d use your own credit card to buy yourself a gift card).

The terms and conditions are that the card can only be used at Melbourne Central.

the card was used outside Melbourne Central... the processing costs, and maybe if the gift card was discounted... would lead to an administrative and financial burden on the shops in melbourne central.

Therefore, they’re going to cancel the remaining cards.

This is not a case of taking money with no intention of providing goods or services. This is a alleged breach of contract where the supplier has chosen to terminate. Perhaps the processing and administrative charge is too high, but that’s a separate issue.

 

[blackcat20]

This is not a case of taking money with no intention of providing goods or services. This is a alleged breach of contract where the supplier has chosen to terminate. Perhaps the processing and administrative charge is too high, but that’s a separate issue.

I read the OP as saying that she had purchased new gift cards; they had taken her money but failed to activate them. They've effectively stolen the money, and only offering to refund it minus an exhorbitant fee.

 

[Kangol]

The terms and conditions are that the card can only be used at Melbourne Central.

No. This is wrong. This is what has been discussed in this thread. The word "only" does not exist in the terms.
Please stop posting if you continue to be dishonest, thankyou.

I read the OP as saying that she had purchased new gift cards; they had taken her money but failed to activate them. They've effectively stolen the money, and only offering to refund it minus an exhorbitant fee.

Yes, this is what has occurred.
They've also taken the credit card details from multiple purchases. I was wondering if anyone with legal experience would be able to comment on this matter.

No terms have been breached on these unactivated cards either - they have not been used.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No. This is wrong. This is what has been discussed in this thread. The word "only" does not exist in the terms.
Please stop posting if you continue to be dishonest, thankyou.


Yes, this is what has occurred.
They've also taken the credit card details from multiple purchases. I was wondering if anyone with legal experience would be able to comment on this matter.

No terms have been breached on these unactivated cards either - they have not been used.

It’s not a case of being ‘dishonest’ as you put it... more that an ordinary person, on an ordinary reading of the terms and conditions would probably understand the card can be used at Melbourne Central shop where EFTPOS is available. And not anywhere else.

It is potentially stretching the terms and conditions to read something in to them that isn’t there (that is, that the card can be used anywhere, worldwide).

But those points aside another potential question is why would someone buy a gift card for personal use when they have a credit card anyway? Was there a discount on the card? I appreciate some people buy gift cards on credit where there’s like a 5-20% discount on the gift card face value. That makes sense. But at the same time, it can also determine eligibility on where the card can be used.

Was this followed up with Consumer Affairs?

 

[UP4014]

"Can be used" and "can only be used" are not the same. You are trying to convince everyone here that they are the same. I'm not sure your logic makes sense with the exclusions.

You missed this part below:

Standard Terms of Use (Givv Gift)

• Redeemable anywhere EFTPOS is available.

A reasonable person reading the standard terms of use would interpret "anywhere" to be exactly as it states.

Unlike others here I think your neighbour should make a stand (but depends on the amounts involved) If the issuer wants to cancel then they shouldn't get away with a fee for admin.

 

[Vic]

The customer purchased a gift card. The exact details are not clear... could have been at a discount perhaps? (otherwise it’s a bit difficult to imagine why you’d use your own credit card to buy yourself a gift card).

The terms and conditions are that the card can only be used at Melbourne Central.

the card was used outside Melbourne Central... the processing costs, and maybe if the gift card was discounted... would lead to an administrative and financial burden on the shops in melbourne central.

Therefore, they’re going to cancel the remaining cards.

This is not a case of taking money with no intention of providing goods or services. This is a alleged breach of contract where the supplier has chosen to terminate. Perhaps the processing and administrative charge is too high, but that’s a separate issue.

Actually, that is NOT what I read in thread. I read:

1. The neighbour purchased gift card/s and used them at various places.
2. The Neighbour then purchased more gift cards using the same credit card
3. Melbournve central (or whatever it's called) refused to activate the new gift cards based on the same credit card being used.

Therefore, the seller of the gift cards had already flagged that credit card and determined (in advance determined) that they would not honour gift cards purchased with that credit card. They took the money knowing they were not going to provide the goods that were purchased. They processed the charge knowing they were never going to honour their side of the sale. They took the money on the second purchase having already flagged that credit card and predetermined to not provide the goods purchased. TAking the money with no intention of providing the goods they offered for sale.

The terms quoted here, including by you, do not include the word "only". You are clearly wrong, the terms do not make the exclusion you claim.

Finally, you and the seller have no means to determine how the subsequent gift cards were going to be used.

I
It is potentially stretching the terms and conditions to read something in to them that isn’t there (that is, that the card can be used anywhere, worldwide).

Yet you're stretching the temrs to include the word "only".

 

[JohnK]

But those points aside another potential question is why would someone buy a gift card for personal use when they have a credit card anyway? Was there a discount on the card? I appreciate some people buy gift cards on credit where there’s like a 5-20% discount on the gift card face value. That makes sense. But at the same time, it can also determine eligibility on where the card can be used.

Buy a gift card to use as not all stores accept credit cards and maybe not all stores accept a specific type of credit card.

Very poor to refuse to activate gift cards and demand ransom to refund money.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually, that is NOT what I read in thread. I read:

1. The neighbour purchased gift card/s and used them at various places.
2. The Neighbour then purchased more gift cards using the same credit card
3. Melbournve central (or whatever it's called) refused to activate the new gift cards based on the same credit card being used.

Therefore, the seller of the gift cards had already flagged that credit card and determined (in advance determined) that they would not honour gift cards purchased with that credit card. They took the money knowing they were not going to provide the goods that were purchased. They processed the charge knowing they were never going to honour their side of the sale. They took the money on the second purchase having already flagged that credit card and predetermined to not provide the goods purchased. TAking the money with no intention of providing the goods they offered for sale.

The terms quoted here, including by you, do not include the word "only". You are clearly wrong, the terms do not make the exclusion you claim.

Finally, you and the seller have no means to determine how the subsequent gift cards were going to be used.



Yet you're stretching the temrs to include the word "only".

If that set of facts is true, the actions of the seller may be questionable. Taking payment with no intention to honor would be a problem.

But it depends when the seller made the discovery. If they discovered the cards had been used outside Melbourne Central only after taking payment for subsequent gift cards, that probably doesn’t fit the description outlined above. And if it’s true that companies can’t hold on to credit card details, maybe that explains the delay in identifying the alleged misuse of the cards?

And perhaps the offer was made to allow the subsequent cards to be used, exclusively, at Melbourne Central? The OP doesn’t say the cards have been cancelled, only that the offer of a refund was made (which could mean the cards can still be used exclusively at MEL Central).

I don’t think a it’s a reasonable reading of the terms and conditions that this card can be used worldwide.