Virgin Australia overcharged me $4500

[straitman]

Would be great to get an official response from VA on the ‘chargeback and your Velocity account gets erased’ threat...

If only their rep was still around here.

 

[samh004]

Anyway, the missing paragraph was as follows:

Interesting that they suggest they saw the right charges being made (the ones in the thousands presumably) but then later decided to refund you the money. If they had a leg to stand on they would not be refunding you, so something must have changed between that email and your continued noise on social media. At the end of the day, a customer can make as much noise as they like but if the figures charged are correct they're not going to change their minds about their course of action, which could suggest they lied in the first email.

Would be great to get an official response from VA on the ‘chargeback and your Velocity account gets erased’ threat...

I wouldn't hold your breath

 

[ajobbins]

Hi folks
Largely irrelevant, as I said, but I appreciate your interest in knowing the whole story!

Thanks for posting that. Not sure why you redacted it in the first place - it seems wholly relevant to me and would in fact be the basis on which you would dispute. Glad you got it sorted in the end - I'm just a lowly gold and may not even keep gold next year at this rate, and I'm pretty OK with that as VA have massively lost their shine recently and I'll very likley move my business back to QF - especially as a good chunk of my travel is to New Zealand and they are now the NZ partner.

I'm also not convinced they can survive longer term based on their current financial state and service offering. Maybe time to consider milking the Platinum status while burning points for a while and switch loyalty?

 

[Jack_OC]

Hi folks

You're a paranoid bunch, aren't you?

Thanks for chipping in your opinions, it's been a while since I've been on a forum of any sort, and I forgot how lively it gets

Anyway, the missing paragraph was as follows:



Largely irrelevant, as I said, but I appreciate your interest in knowing the whole story! I'm not 100% sure why I redacted that bit of the email in hindsight, but I'm sure I had a reason!

Their argument initially was that nothing could have possibly gone wrong with their backend systems: it took conversations with two seemingly very senior VA people—Florian, and Annettte—before they conceded that it was possible something went wrong on the backend.

They initially wanted to wait days/weeks for their upgrade vendor (who is apparently NYC-based) to get back to them, before they refunded me, but I argued that the correct customer service action was to make it right with the customer before waiting for their investigation to complete. It made no sense to me why they became so hostile initially, and refused refunds, while simultaneously admitting it was overcharged but refusing to say it was a mistake.

Florian and Annette agreed with me, paid me the refund via bank transfer on the same day, and that was the end of that. Florian agreed it was a customer service lesson for them, and agreed to update me when their upgrade vendor got back to them so I could have some non-monetary closure as well.

The people who threatened with closing my VFF membership were from VA, not VFF, and had strong Australian accents. I only started to get any form of traction on VA fixing this when I started getting loud on Twitter (Dr Paris (@parisba) | Twitter).

As for redacting bits of the email, but not my names -- all my information is online, I am a very public person with my name/phone/etc.

Cheers
Paris

Thanks for providing the full response. However, there is absolutely nothing irrelevant about the paragraph that you initially redacted - in fact it contradicts a key part of your OP: you initially claimed "they admit I was overcharged, but refuse to fix it". However, in reality, they refused to accept that you were overcharged - in fact they explicitly stated "we have confirmed that the charges made were charged correctly".

There is a world of a difference between these two versions. I think it's now very clear why you redacted this paragraph - you were trying to make it look like they had agreed you were overcharged, when in fact they had not done any such thing. It's ridiculous to suggest that comment was "irrelevant".

 

[dajop]

Pro tip: before reaching a conclusion, make an effort to hear both sides of the story. Especially when one party goes out of their way to stop you hearing the other side.

Wow, if everyone started doing that it would really start undermining democracy as we know it, which is underpinned by the very principle that the people only listen to the side of the story they want to listen to.

 

[RAM]

Actually now you mention it, we did a chargeback from Virgin perhaps 2 years ago because they took a very long time to pay us a refund they acknowledged we were going to get. They sent a very threatening letter telling us if we ever did a charge back again they would close our account. Didn’t bother me, I have no status and I don’t think I’ve flown Virgin since.



As per above, I can confirm that I did receive such a termination threat letter after I did a chargeback.

and another data point...

I cannot remember which thread I posted this to previously (sorry for duplication) but I had very similar experience due to CCA incompetence with booking (not booking actually) reward business class flights to Europe.

When email arrived (after excruciatingly long time on phone with CCA #1) the flights (via Melbourne) had the two of us in Y to europe on every sector.

So called again. Got seemingly switched on CCA #2 who:

• asked why we didn't want to fly direct out of SYD as a couplle of business class options available on the date wanted and times
  
• fees charged were Y not business so will reverse them and charge business fees & charges
• do you want to allocate your seats now?

All done in (memory) 15-20 minutes and they made sure that the itinerary etc email was received while on phone.

Seemingly GREAT recovery and better (flights) result in correct class.

NEVER ASSUME....

Billing delayed and just missed next CC statement, so when statement arrived (I avoid online due to risk of hacking) I was shocked to see that (I think memory is correct about litany of charge errors):

• reversal of Y F&Cs was actually charging them again
• attempted fix (2x Y F&Cs) done wrong way as well
• 2nd attempted fix done correctly for 1x Y F&Cs

So cue phone calls to resolve...

Many, many calls, hours of time and no success. Important - also ask for a digital copy of your telephone call as is your right - very useful for Company Secretary option if needed - shows you have nothing to hide AND that you have the company dead in your sights. Amazing how some Company Secretaries have NO idea about the Federal Privacy Legislation (worrying as well).

Finally follow tried and trusted fix, call VA senior legal officer (Company Secretary) and provide details 'as courtesy' before approaching Federal authroities over systemic errors in VAs systems...

Money refunded, a few thousand points (not many given time involved and delays BUT not CC interest charges as paid off EOM) within a few days.

As bookings had wiped out VFF balance that threat would not have held water but just about every other play in the playbook (from Insurance company procedures manual it seemed) was tried multiple times.

Like - you have already been refunded the excess charges - I can see the reversal (but mysteriously dod not see the multiple other reversals charging more...).

What is bad/serious is that they repeatedly tried fobbing off with the 'allow 4-6 weeks for processing' line. To which my response was 'if you can incorrectly charge me in 30 seconds then there is no need for excessive delay for refund especialy as errors noted at the time of charge creation by yourselves....

 

[samh004]

Thanks for providing the full response. However, there is absolutely nothing irrelevant about the paragraph that you initially redacted - in fact it contradicts a key part of your OP: you initially claimed "they admit I was overcharged, but refuse to fix it". However, in reality, they refused to accept that you were overcharged - in fact they explicitly stated "we have confirmed that the charges made were charged correctly".

There is a world of a difference between these two versions. I think it's now very clear why you redacted this paragraph - you were trying to make it look like they had agreed you were overcharged, when in fact they had not done any such thing. It's ridiculous to suggest that comment was "irrelevant".

I agree with you 100% on this, as it changes the message that the email was putting forth.

That being said, if they checked their systems with all evidence in the upgrade system, original emails and then the confirmation emails pointing to the conclusion that the member was charged the right amount, why would such a big company bow to a little social media pressure and refund money that was correctly theirs?

No offence to Dr Paris, but he only has 7.6k followers on Twitter. It may seem like a large social media presence, but my partner has more followers. What I'm getting at is that I don't believe a company like Virgin Australia would refund a few thousand dollars just because you make enough noise on Twitter. If they were in the habit of refunding money that was legitimately theirs for every person with a few thousand Twitter followers then they wouldn't be in business very long.

So, while I think the original post was a little skewed thanks to the missing paragraph, the image posted a little later down the thread showing the amounts on the screen proved that there was a discrepancy and validated the members claims, hence why they asked the question on AFF. Further, with Virgin Australia now refunding the difference, they're either pushovers (and it's open season) or their original conclusion was based on flawed or faked evidence.

In any case, this raises BIG questions for Virgin Australia to answer, but I don't imagine they will.

 

[RAM]

Not a great assumption to make considering we have only heard one side out of the 3 sides to this story.

However, given my own personal experience, it is unfortunately plausible although that does not necessarily make it true.

BUT, as the Banking Royal Commission and numerous other Royal Commissions, Inquiries and reports have shown - many companies do not always follow any sort of ethics or the law.

My collection of digital copies of phone calls is now over 40 or so (collections not calls). Each collection relates to one instance of a company doing something incorrect and refusing to make good/reverse it.

A number I've posted about on AFF over the years such as JetStar, VA, Lufthansa and Qantas. Non-airline related range from banks, health insurance, supermarkets (BIG win with same pricing for W online as in-store), Telcos, Power/Gas disruptor.

In the late 1970s or very early 1980s a disgruntled ex-employee of an insurance company, with a great view of Circular Quay, provided a copy of the procedures manual (had a different name then) for the insurance claims dept. One pargraph reproduced in the newspaper was, 'Refuse claim using standard pro-forma letter for first 4 (I think it was) written requests from customer'.

Who needs to watch TV when reality is often more incredible.

 

[JohnK]

Largely irrelevant, as I said, but I appreciate your interest in knowing the whole story! I'm not 100% sure why I redacted that bit of the email in hindsight, but I'm sure I had a reason!

I suspected this matter involved a glitch. The glitch itself is irrelevant as is the initial attempt by VA to recoup the full difference of the upgrade.

Good outcome.

 

[theblank]

In any case, this raises BIG questions for Virgin Australia to answer

I don't think it does, its really just a case of 1st or 2nd level support, acting in accordance with their systems, and quoting back the way they saw it, which was it was a normal upgrade bid.

There was nothing in the letter to suggest threats or stealing of money.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I have a feeling there is a pool of people who feel the same way

After reading this it makes me glad I don’t deal with VA anymore!

Haha same here

 

[samh004]

There was nothing in the letter to suggest threats or stealing of money.

The letter suggests they checked the amounts quoted and verified they were correct in at least 3 areas. If this is so, why was a subsequent refund issued? That to me suggests the amounts are not what they said they were.

 

[theblank]

The letter suggests they checked the amounts quoted and verified they were correct in at least 3 areas. If this is so, why was a subsequent refund issued?

It would seem obvious that there was a technical issue that caused incorrect amounts to be charged, and that issue was not immediately apparent to those investigating at first.

There was no conspiracy to steal money. No line staff member involved had anything to gain by lying or deceiving.

 

[Pushka]

It would seem obvious that there was a technical issue that caused incorrect amounts to be charged, and that issue was not immediately apparent to those investigating at first.

There was no conspiracy to steal money. No line staff member involved had anything to gain by lying or deceiving.

And there is also no need for Virgin to threaten account closure when quite clearly their Accounting/charging/customer refunds leave a lot to be desired. (I know Qantas isnt always brilliant either but have never been sent a threatening letter like Virgin sent me when I dared to do a chargeback on my long time missing refund))

 

[samh004]

It would seem obvious that there was a technical issue that caused incorrect amounts to be charged, and that issue was not immediately apparent to those investigating at first.

There was no conspiracy to steal money. No line staff member involved had anything to gain by lying or deceiving.

If there was a technical glitch, they would have no doubt seen the incorrect amounts displayed. Suggests there's more than meets the eye, though even if there wasn't, did this only happen to one person? Doesn't give me confidence in their systems and processes. If it does for you though, that's awesome!

 

[Dr Paris]

It makes me super scared to use the upgrade system again!

 

[RAM]

If there was a technical glitch, they would have no doubt seen the incorrect amounts displayed. Suggests there's more than meets the eye, though even if there wasn't, did this only happen to one person? Doesn't give me confidence in their systems and processes. If it does for you though, that's awesome!

As you and probably everybody else understands - most of VA's services are out-sourced under contracts.

This makes getting something, that has gone badly wrong, fixed is exponentially harder - especially if there are legal issues involved (as has been the case with me 2x and VA).

If it was indeed a technical glitch then you now have at least 3 different areas (possibly sub-contractors involved) - as is all too typical in recent decades - the first reaction is; 'It is not my responsibility' as opposed to the attitude at 'winning' companies - 'How can we fix the situation for our customer'.

Take for example the issuing of refunds over a certain amount by the CCAs - that involves the sub-contractor having to either seek clearance from VA Qld to refund the amount OR passing the matter onto VA Qld to deal with. This turned out to be the stumbling block in both my cases.

No sub-contractor wants to alert the client that they are making significant mistakes, their systems are either non-existent, not being followed or just plain wrong. They risk financial penalties under the out-sourcing contract and perhaps losing the contract.

So (just like with the revelations from the Banking RC) silos develop and 'need-to-need' as well as self-preservation over-ride doing what is right.

That is where digital copies of calls come into their own. Provided you keep a note of time start, date, ideally who you spoke with then the out-sourcer is sunk. Under virtually every contract there are numerous clauses to do with meeting the Federal Privacy legislation. Failure to abide by them is cause for instant contract cancelation with no compensation to the sub-contractor.

Then drop down a level to the employee in the xx_ (insert relevant country) call centre where they have targets for calls dealt with per hour, call waiting times etc etc. Ever wondered about those call drop outs...

Not a nice situation to work in but that is what the supposed out-sourcing cost savings flow from. After all the fat has been cut then only the muscle is left to trim.

 

[bobcat]

So they admit I was overcharged, but refuse to fix it.

NARRATOR: They didn't.

As advised, after retrieving all data from our upgrade system as well as reviewing the confirmation emails that were emailed to you upon receiving your offer as well as the confirmation email sent to you once the bidding window had closed and your offer was accepted, we have confirmed that the charges made were charged correctly.

Something has clearly gone amiss and am sympathetic as can understand this has created financial stress for you, but it doesn't help anybody to misrepresent VFF/VA.

 

[Pushka]

NARRATOR: They didn't.



Something has clearly gone amiss and am sympathetic as can understand this has created financial stress for you, but it doesn't help anybody to misrepresent VFF/VA.

I think OP just narrated the facts. And others have added their experience.

 

[Dr Paris]

Wasn't really misrepresenting — they pretty clearly state that they overcharged in their contacts, I think they were very clueless in the way they handled this.