No more card retention teams ?

[Kremmen]

And, we didn't really need a banking RC cos' they all behave so well, oh wait, perhaps we did because they don't.

There is a difference between legislation that prevents unfair, nefarious behaviour by one party and legislation which prevents one party from even offering the other party a reasonable alternative that may be acceptable to both of them.

 

[SOPOOR]

I just phoned up Amex Platinum line and asked to speak to retention team. CSO asked why, I told him I wan't happy with the fee increase / points devaluation, and that I'm considering cancelling card, what could they offer to help me stay. After a bit of a sales pitch, he said he'd look at what offers were available for me, and a few minutes later credited me 25k points. Doesn't cover fee, but it all helps!

Is the amex platinum line the same as the 1800 enquires number?

 

[nickfromeastryde]

That's just a silly idea that no one has suggested except you.

Not sure that it wasn't suggested during the RC. There was some expressions of disappointment from some consumer groups that a degree of "caveat venditor" wasn't recommended by Commissioner Hayne

 

[dajop]

Aaah, interesting. Here in SG, on the cards I have there's always a choice. Fee waiver or 10,000 miles. You want a fee waiver "Dial 4 for fee waiver" then "Dial 1 for Late Fee Waiver, Dial 2 for Annual Fee Waiver ..." That's what you all need. No threats to cancel, just sensible business to retain customers who care, and pick up annual fees from customers who don't.

 

[Isochronous]

Aaah, interesting. Here in SG, on the cards I have there's always a choice. Fee waiver or 10,000 miles. You want a fee waiver "Dial 4 for fee waiver" then "Dial 1 for Late Fee Waiver, Dial 2 for Annual Fee Waiver ..." That's what you all need. No threats to cancel, just sensible business to retain customers who care, and pick up annual fees from customers who don't.

A sensible system - you don't even need to speak to a human to do it!

 

[tgh]

Credit issuers must give customers the option to cancel their accounts or reduce their credit limits online. When a customer makes a request, the credit issuer must take reasonable steps to help the customer meet their request. This means that card issuers can no longer offer contrary suggestions when you’re trying to close your account or reduce your credit limit.

Interesting.. everyone is different.. but that should not trigger discrimination.
As a septuagenarian , my hearing has deteriorated and I cannot reliably chat with a native english speaker , let alone a non e sp
So I send woolies ( Mcq) a message on line pls cancel my cards before the annual fee is payable.
Please do not ring me as I am acoustically challenged, please contact me by email.
Of course they ring me and I terminate the call because I cannot understand the non native english speaker.
No written response , I forget about it all and suddenly we have two charges for annual fee on the statement.
Another "slightly" terse message is sent requesting immediate termination and crediting the charges, also pointing out that a written request is a legally binding instrument.
Next .. surprise surprise ...Phone rings and rings (no caller id) , I don't answer of course , several messages are left to please call us, which I ignored.
Eventually I am advised by email that both card charges will be reversed but that they cannot/will not cancel the cards unless I speak to them.
how does that work ??

So , of course ,they eventually reverse the primary charge but the secondary card charge is not reversed…..
I give up… Swmbo uses her card sometimes tho I never use mine
I will live with the relatively minor charge and play the whole silly game again next year

 

[pangwen]

I have had a quick look at the NCCPA and the ban on retention bonuses is not clear to me (although the ban on credit limit increase invitations is):



Unless there is another section which more directly addresses the cancellation request situation, the argument would appear to be based on s.124(2)(b) - a mere request to cancel means that the card does not meet the consumer's requirements and those ought to be respected. That being the case, a consumer who rings up and asks for a retention bonus or an incentive to keep the card should be able to do so because, absent an express request to cancel, there is no implication that the card no longer meets the consumer's requirements.

It would then appear that the banks are now acting far more conservatively than the legislation obligates them to. That is not illegal but it is misleading for them to say that they are prohibited by law from acting differently.

My reading is that sections 133BV and 133BW are more relevant in this case:

133BV Credit provider not to suggest the consumer not terminate the credit card contract

When this section applies

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a consumer who is the debtor under a credit card contract has a credit card termination entitlement under the contract; and

(b) the consumer has requested to terminate the credit card contract.

Requirement

(2) The licensee who is the credit provider under the credit card contract must not suggest that the consumer remain in the credit card contract.

Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.

Offence

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is subject to a requirement under subsection (2); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct contravenes the requirement.

Criminal penalty: 50 penalty units.

133BW Credit provider to give effect to request to terminate credit card contract

When this section applies

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a consumer who is the debtor under a credit card contract has a credit card termination entitlement under the contract; and

(b) the consumer has requested to terminate the consumer’s credit card contract.

Requirement

(2) The licensee who is the credit provider under the credit card contract must take reasonable steps to ensure that the request is given effect to as soon as practicable.

Civil penalty: 2,000 penalty units.

Offence

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is subject to a requirement under subsection (2); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct contravenes the requirement.

Criminal penalty: 50 penalty units.​

133BV says if you mention that you request to cancel, the company can't suggest that you stay (which I imagine would include asking "would you stay if we waived the fee/gave you points?"). 133BW says that if you mention that you request to cancel, they need to do it as soon as practicable. I guess you could try to get around this by not saying that you want to cancel, but are only 'considering' it.

 

[Daver6]

That's a really good point. When I've called up to seek a retention bonus/annual fee waiver, I've always said that I'm reassessing my credit card situation and wondering if there is anything that can be done to make this one a more attractive proposition to keep.

 

[pyeardley]

Is the amex platinum line the same as the 1800 enquires number?

1800 673 760 is number on back of card, not sure what the enquiries number is.

 

[SOPOOR]

That's a really good point. When I've called up to seek a retention bonus/annual fee waiver, I've always said that I'm reassessing my credit card situation and wondering if there is anything that can be done to make this one a more attractive proposition to keep.

I just tried that, got through to philippines again,
no good for me

 

[burmans]

Eventually I am advised by email that both card charges will be reversed but that they cannot/will not cancel the cards unless I speak to them.
how does that work ??

They cannot (or will not) validate personal details by email so need to phone to positively identify you.

 

[Isochronous]

Credit issuers must give customers the option to cancel their accounts or reduce their credit limits online. When a customer makes a request, the credit issuer must take reasonable steps to help the customer meet their request. This means that card issuers can no longer offer contrary suggestions when you’re trying to close your account or reduce your credit limit.

Interesting.. everyone is different.. but that should not trigger discrimination.
As a septuagenarian , my hearing has deteriorated and I cannot reliably chat with a native english speaker , let alone a non e sp
So I send woolies ( Mcq) a message on line pls cancel my cards before the annual fee is payable.
Please do not ring me as I am acoustically challenged, please contact me by email.
Of course they ring me and I terminate the call because I cannot understand the non native english speaker.
No written response , I forget about it all and suddenly we have two charges for annual fee on the statement.
Another "slightly" terse message is sent requesting immediate termination and crediting the charges, also pointing out that a written request is a legally binding instrument.
Next .. surprise surprise ...Phone rings and rings (no caller id) , I don't answer of course , several messages are left to please call us, which I ignored.
Eventually I am advised by email that both card charges will be reversed but that they cannot/will not cancel the cards unless I speak to them.
how does that work ??

So , of course ,they eventually reverse the primary charge but the secondary card charge is not reversed…..
I give up… Swmbo uses her card sometimes tho I never use mine
I will live with the relatively minor charge and play the whole silly game again next year

That is a very clear case of disability discrimination. You should initiate cases with the FOS and AHRC and get some compensation out of it.

My reading is that sections 133BV and 133BW are more relevant in this case:



133BV says if you mention that you request to cancel, the company can't suggest that you stay (which I imagine would include asking "would you stay if we waived the fee/gave you points?"). 133BW says that if you mention that you request to cancel, they need to do it as soon as practicable. I guess you could try to get around this by not saying that you want to cancel, but are only 'considering' it.

Good find. The key then is avoiding mention of the word cancel.

 

[wassie]

As per last year, I rang to cancel my Bankwest Platinum Qantas M/C a couple of weeks ago and was placed through to retentions and offered the fee waiver. This topic is pretty interesting and wondering now if my experience was an exception.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Another example of the nanny-state mentality being detrimental to society.

No. It's government enacting regulation for the benefit of society. To whom is it detrimental? An agreement (which discloses all applicable fees) was freely entered into by all parties. If one then decides they made an error or the terms of the agreement no longer suit, then it's now easier to cancel it. The legislative changes simply make it easier to do that without all the high pressure pitches which can and do place people in greater financial strife. Not everyone can manage a CC wisely, not everyone can ignore high pressure sales tactics and unfortunately, we do have unscrupulous entities (even big ones) that are very willing to destroy lives to make a profit.

Aaah, interesting. Here in SG, on the cards I have there's always a choice. Fee waiver or 10,000 miles. You want a fee waiver "Dial 4 for fee waiver" then "Dial 1 for Late Fee Waiver, Dial 2 for Annual Fee Waiver ..." That's what you all need. No threats to cancel, just sensible business to retain customers who care, and pick up annual fees from customers who don't.

Seems ludicrous really. Why have the fee to start with? Remembering fees are supposed to be for a justifiable reason. If they so easily wipe them, then they don't need them so they shouldn't be there.

Personally, as much as I don't particularly agree with the so called "nanny state" mentality that pervades much of the bureaucratic Australian psyche, I see this as positive. It helps protect the vulnerable from high pressure tactics (who can forget the Down syndrome man having to be coached by his father to speak the exact words needed to cancel a policy he was pressured into buying from a cold call) and honestly, there is likely an upside, that being better products. We can all manage with just one card, however many of us have quite a few, for various benefits each have, Hanging on to a cough product was happening because of those retention incentives offered, but now they are gone, the cards will need to be attractive to us for us to keep them. I envisage a range of better products into the future and who knows, perhaps better sign on incentives.

 

[33kft]

Seems ludicrous really. Why have the fee to start with? Remembering fees are supposed to be for a justifiable reason. If they so easily wipe them, then they don't need them so they shouldn't be there.

Because you're not assured of getting it waived: What You Need to Know About the Annual Fees for Singapore’s Most Popular Credit Cards

Believe it or not, about 90% of customers that call a bank’s hotline are just hoping to get their credit card annual fees waived. These days, some banks have even invested in an automated fee waiver system because of the number of calls they get regarding annual fee waver requests. You don’t even have to speak to a human being to get your fees waived.

Some banks use a complicated formula to determine if they’re able to waive your credit card annual fee. Trying to figure out the formula is like deciphering quantum mechanics. It’s not impossible, but no one’s going to waste time figuring it out. What we do know is that it’s based on your card usage – how regularly you use your card and how much you spend on it, as well as whether you make payment in full and on time.

 

[33kft]

Also, just to counter any suggestion that this is a better approach, no banks have implemented this to make it easier for customers to waive fees. The purpose of such a system is to give an automated "computer says no" response to less valuable customers and then avoid the difficult conversation that follows by directing them back to the same piece of software that said no in the first place. It is certainly not in the customer's favour.

 

[Isochronous]

No. It's government enacting regulation for the benefit of society. To whom is it detrimental? An agreement (which discloses all applicable fees) was freely entered into by all parties. If one then decides they made an error or the terms of the agreement no longer suit, then it's now easier to cancel it. The legislative changes simply make it easier to do that without all the high pressure pitches which can and do place people in greater financial strife. Not everyone can manage a CC wisely, not everyone can ignore high pressure sales tactics and unfortunately, we do have unscrupulous entities (even big ones) that are very willing to destroy lives to make a profit.

People need to accept personal responsibility and stop looking to blame others for making poor decisions. If some people cannot manage a CC wisely then they shouldn't apply for one in the first place. If you can't see the detriment of this regulation then it is very clear that you have failed to read this thread. The detriment is that banks feel constrained from offering incentives for cardholders to continue holding their cards in a market where the incentives are already heavily skewed towards rewarding new customer acquisition rather than continued loyalty.

 

[Mattg]

I find it interesting to see how governments regulate to try to protect users of credit from themselves.

In the Netherlands, it’s mandatory to include a warning that “borrowing money costs money” on advertisements for credit products, in a similar style to the health warnings on cigarette packs. A study was done recently which found the Dutch regulations made no difference.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

People need to accept personal responsibility and stop looking to blame others for making poor decisions. If some people cannot manage a CC wisely then they shouldn't apply for one in the first place. If you can't see the detriment of this regulation then it is very clear that you have failed to read this thread. The detriment is that banks feel constrained from offering incentives for cardholders to continue holding their cards in a market where the incentives are already heavily skewed towards rewarding new customer acquisition rather than continued loyalty.

I've read the thread and I understand what you perceive as a detriment. The trouble is, it's not. You accepted the terms of the card, including the fee and say if you are forced to pay that fee, it's detrimental? Yet someone else posted that 90% of callers to bank hotlines are trying to have their fee removed. There is a cost with that which actually means such a tactic is detrimental to others. Who knows, with these changes we may see some banks getting rid of the fee in order to lure new customers. As for people needing to be more personally responsible, you are ignoring the high pressure con artistry of these big institutions which actually prey on people who don't understand the ways, language and means of these immorale companies. Those institutions coach their staff on how to best enact the con. Most lay people don't receive coaching on how to protect themselves from those low lifes. Having protection regulation is mostly a good thing and often more convenient for all of us.

 

[Tiki]

Is there anything to stop them from offering anniversary bonuses? I still have 2 of my US cards. Barclays AA card because I get 10k AA miles for the cost of $89 annual fee. And the Chase IHG card which gives a free hotel night for the $49 annual fee. So far I have yet to get less than at least $150 value from that night!