Virgin Australia overcharged me $4500

[TripleB]

When a cardholder initiates a credit card chargeback they are invoking a contractual right as between them and the credit card provider. The right is (put very simply) to have the credit card provider look into the charges and make a determination as to their correctness.

The credit card company back-to-backs this contractual process as between them and the cardholder with another contractual process as between the credit card company and the merchant. This (again very simply) requires the merchant (if they wish to be paid) to submit to the investigation process by the card company and accept the card company's decision in relation to the charges. The card company's decision is final as between the cardholder and the card company on the one hand and the merchant and the card company on the other hand. [There are obviously some exceptions to the finality of this but I've not gone there for the purpose of this post].

If either the cardholder or the merchant don't like the decision of the card company, then they can initiate legal proceedings against the other for the difference between what the card company paid/charged them and what they think should have been paid/charged pursuant to the terms of the agreement as between the cardholder and merchant.

In relation to the questions and comments upthread:

The merchant doesn't have any realistic legal recourse to stop a cardholder initiating the chargeback procedure pursuant to the cardholder's contract with the card company. Naturally all the criminal laws would apply to the cardholder in relation to initiating the chargeback (the most obvious one would be (attempted) fraud) - but if the cardholder is genuinely of the belief that they have been incorrectly charged (even if that belief is totally misguided or unfounded) ... it's going to be a tough ask for the criminal law to apply.

The merchant can of course threaten to take some kind of retaliatory action if the cardholder initiates a chargeback. I stand by my previous comments in relation to this threat likely being a breach of s18 of the ACL (although I note that this is not a view shared by others upthread).

If the merchant were to follow through on the threat to take retaliatory action in this case by cancelling your velocity account - you'd attack it both as a matter of contract and under s18. It's interesting that Virgin hasn't given themselves a unilateral right to terminate a velocity account for any reason at any time. Whether such a purported right would actually be effective is something else - but it's interesting (at least for me) that they have made a deliberate drafting decision not to do that. No doubt that Virgin would seek to rely on the following provision:

10.1.1 Points:
(a) do not have any cash value and are not convertible into cash;
(b) are solely a unit of measurement adopted by VRPL and not any form of contractual right, property or currency;
(c) are not subject to a Member’s direction, control or other entitlement;​

to say that points don't have any value so you haven't suffered a loss by them cancelling your membership. I think that you would have a reasonable chance of peeling back that clause to the reality of the situation - that is points do have some value.

 

[Jack_OC]

Post #10 has two things attached, the email and a screenshot (subsequently better shown in post 12).

The wording you refer to "So they admit I was overcharged, but refuse to fix it." does not say that the email says this, just the VA have said this, you have not provided any reference which says that this was admitted in the email. The response to your question "What was in the paragraph you have blanked out?" may be confusing if it doesnt answer your question but specificaly refers to the image not the email.

As confirmed by the OP himself in his latest post (see below), he is claiming that the email stated he was overcharged. ​

Folks, I appreciate the discussion, so don’t misinterpret this as a request to stop, but I really wasn’t trying to misrepresent anything.

VA said it was correct, according to their systems, and then said I was overcharged. They did this in emails and phone calls, one of of which you’ve seen.​

​

I can't see anywhere in the email that you posted where VA "said you were overcharged". Are you trying to hang your hat on the fact that the VA email stated "Therefore, while we appreciate your request for a refund of the overcharged amount, a refund will not be forthcoming"?

If so, that is not them agreeing you were overcharged, it's simply them saying they understand what you are asking for, but they are not agreeing to your request. This is very obvious when you read this sentence in the context of the paragraph that precedes it - which is presumably why you decided to redact that paragraph.

With, or without, the context in the email I redacted and shared (and again, I don’t actually know why I redacted it — I wasn’t trying to misrepresent anything, I was just trying to condense my posts to the minimum necessary info to have a whinge with!) at various points and over various mediums,

As I pointed out previously, you didn't redact anything else from the email, so the theory that you were editing for brevity just doesn't stand up. You left in details such as names, "Thank you for your time on the phone today" and "If you have any questions, do not hesitate to let me know". How could you possibly have concluded that all of that was part of the "minimum necessary" but VA's justification for refusing your refund was not?! Come off it!

 

[juddles]

Hi all, have joined this thread after it is all "over", or so it appears.

Having read the whole thing in one go, from OP to now, I must say that this is a confusing thread. The basics (OP's frustration, etc) seem simple enough, but as I read through it I saw some chit chat and questions raised (ie regarding redacted email) then I saw certain members talking about the "detractors", those "attacking" the OP.

Sorry all, but looking at it from the outside, there were simply no such "attacks" - there were requests for clarification, more info, etc. But in my opinion the only attacks here were on those who dared ask for more detail from the OP.

This is fairly typical in such a type of thread as this these days. Without naming names, it is always the same couple who claim "attacks".

Yes, I am often in the group who have reservations about one-off rants, but I think even throwing my previous experience of first-post-rants aside, the doubts raised here were very simple, on topic, and in the end proved to be valid. A story only partially told...

This is so like global warming - if you dare not to "hate", you are hated........

 

[RooFlyer]

As confirmed by the OP himself in his latest post (see below), he is claiming that the email stated he was overcharged. ​

<snip for space>

As I pointed out previously, you didn't redact anything else from the email, so the theory that you were editing for brevity just doesn't stand up. You left in details such as names, "Thank you for your time on the phone today" and "If you have any questions, do not hesitate to let me know". How could you possibly have concluded that all of that was part of the "minimum necessary" but VA's justification for refusing your refund was not?! Come off it!

Oh for goodness sake, what's being tried to achieve by coming on time and again seeming to imply that the OP has been - what? Deceptive? OP came on with a bit of a whinge, has explained every step of his process, 'mia culpered' his 'redaction', has announced that VA has come to his party, he's happy, we are happy for him, (well, most of us) yet you are still coming on and nit picking what was redacted etc.

What on earth does it matter now?

 

[RooFlyer]

BTW, A poster here can only give their side of any given story. So I don't see why 'we are only given one side of the story' is a useful observation, other than to muddy the topic waters and imply some dark other side of the situation.

Every post I make only gives one side of the topic been discussed. A hotel I stayed at; an airline experience I had, some wine I quaffed. Anyone could of course come on the thread and mutter 'oh, we have only been given one side of the story here' and maybe say I've 'redacted' from my story things which would have countered the issue or experience I was addressing, therefore nullifying a possibly negative light I was casting on their favourite hotel, airline, wine brand etc. Right?

Go ahead - knock yourself out - it would be as pointless as similar observations have been here.

Virgin and Qantas are free to have reps here and post what they like - they decline to do so. That's our loss, but if they decline to engage and give 'their side of the story' then that's not the OP's fault.

 

[juddles]

Oh for goodness sake, just what are you trying to achieve by coming on here time and again seeming to imply that the OP has been - what? Deceptive? OP came on with a bit of a whinge, has explained every step of his process, 'mia culpered' his 'redaction', has announced that VA has come to his party, he's happy, we are happy for him, (well, most of us) yet you are still coming on and nit picking what was redacted etc.

What on earth does it matter now?

RooFlyer, but you are doing the same!! You are arguing against someone who has only expressed small, logical, comments and apprehensions about the OP's post.

I am certainly not claiming that the OP is "deceptive", but you should surely see that there were a few inconsistencies that came to light here?

A "redaction" of an email. Which the OP says he "cannot remember why he did it". Which was a redaction of content which was specifically in contradiction of his other claims. Hello?? I know you dislike airlines, but in what world is this kosher??

 

[RooFlyer]

My point juddles is that the matter was settled in the OP's favour. The airline folded. The OP wasn't required to give an explanation to the gallery here, but he politely did - with a bit of a mia culpa.

What's the point of continuing to question his story? The caravan has moved on but the dogs, as the saying goes, are still barking.

 

[juddles]

Virgin and Qantas are free to have reps here and post what they like - they decline to do so. That's our loss, but if they decline to engage and give 'their side of the story' then that's not the OP's fault.

I agree it would be nice if the airlines satisfied our needs by having a rep here. But they know it is just not worth it - as per this thread. People will argue from their own positions forever - there are no winners on internet forums.

What is any OP's fault (and will almost invariably happen through sheer human nature) is that the OP will paint a picture that is pretty for them, but not quite true....

 

[juddles]

My point juddles is that the matter was settled in the OP's favour. The airline folded. The OP wasn't required to give an explanation to the gallery here, but he politely did - with a bit of a mia culpa.

What's the point of continuing to question his story? The caravan has moved on but the dogs, as the saying goes, are still barking.

But the "dogs" in this thread were those who attacked the posters who wanted more info. How is it right that when someone like the OP makes an acusation, such as in this post, it is those wanting more info who become the target of people like yourself? I just do not understand why the outrage that people questioned the OP regarding the redacted email.

 

[Ric]

I think the OP can clear this up by stating clearly whether the "admission of overcharged" was in the email(s) or in the phone discussion(s) that he had with VA.

 

[juddles]

I think the OP can clear this up by stating clearly whether the "admission of overcharged" was in the email(s) or in the phone discussion(s) that he had with VA.

I suspect the "admission of overcharged" was simply an idea that the OP managed to take from a selected bit of text in an email. VA said "Therefore whilst we appreciate your request for a refund of the overcharged amount, a refund of this will not be forthcoming". I think the OP is using (in his own head) that phrase "the overcharged amount" to try to believe that VA accepted said overcharge. (But he also redacted the preceding paragraph where VA said that they had checked everything and the charge was correct - so when you have access to that other paragraph, the VA reference to an "overcharged amount" was actually a reference to the OP's claim, not to their acceptance of such.

 

[RooFlyer]

But the "dogs" in this thread were those who attacked the posters who wanted more info. How is it right that when someone like the OP makes an acusation, such as in this post, it is those wanting more info who become the target of people like yourself? I just do not understand why the outrage that people questioned the OP regarding the redacted email.

Woof. Issue over - 'night.

 

[Jack_OC]

I think the OP can clear this up by stating clearly whether the "admission of overcharged" was in the email(s) or in the phone discussion(s) that he had with VA.

He has already cleared this up - see post #119. He's clearly saying that the email (the specific email that he posted in this thread) contained an admission from VA that they overcharged him. This was already very obvious, both from his comments on this thread and even more so from what he wrote on Twitter - e.g. a screenshot of the (redacted) email along with the comment "There is no way to read this as anything else beyond VA acknowledging it was an overcharged amount, right?" (my bolding).

My point juddles is that the matter was settled in the OP's favour. The airline folded. The OP wasn't required to give an explanation to the gallery here, but he politely did - with a bit of a mia culpa.

What's the point of continuing to question his story? The caravan has moved on but the dogs, as the saying goes, are still barking.

Every post I have made in the last couple of days has been directly in response to someone else who has continued to argue with what I have said.

Pro tip #3: If you don't want a thread to continue, stop posting in it!

BTW, the argument that "OP wasn't required to give an explanation to the gallery here" is utterly laughable. He started this thread so the "gallery" could read his rant, in which he made very serious allegations (at least one of which - theft - is almost certainly false). He even identified an individual VA staff member by their full name while doing so. On Twitter he went even further - for example, he made a reference to this VA employee's LinkedIn profile, along with a sarcastic comment about her job title.

I think it's quite reasonable to challenge someone in these circumstances.
​

 

[Pushka]

He has already cleared this up - see post #119. He's clearly saying that the email (the specific email that he posted in this thread) contained an admission from VA that they overcharged him. This was already very obvious, both from his comments on this thread and even more so from what he wrote on Twitter - e.g. a screenshot of the (redacted) email along with the comment "There is no way to read this as anything else beyond VA acknowledging it was an overcharged amount, right?" (my bolding).



Every post I have made in the last couple of days has been directly in response to someone else who has continued to argue with what I have said.

Pro tip #3: If you don't want a thread to continue, stop posting in it!

BTW, the argument that "OP wasn't required to give an explanation to the gallery here" is utterly laughable. He started this thread so the "gallery" could read his rant, in which he made very serious allegations (at least one of which - theft - is almost certainly false). He even identified an individual VA staff member by their full name while doing so. On Twitter he went even further - for example, he made a reference to this VA employee's LinkedIn profile, along with a sarcastic comment about her job title.

I think it's quite reasonable to challenge someone in these circumstances.
​

I thought his original post was perfectly reasonable and no mention of theft. Just overcharging. And his concerns about doing a chargeback as suggested by several long term posters here rang very true for me.

Oops. Read the Title Pushka.

 

[mannej]

I thought his original post was perfectly reasonable and no mention of theft. Just overcharging. And his concerns about doing a chargeback as suggested by several long term posters here rang very true for me.

What is the title of the thread? That is fairly explicit in what it is accusing.

 

[Jack_OC]

I thought his original post was perfectly reasonable and no mention of theft. Just overcharging. And his concerns about doing a chargeback as suggested by several long term posters here rang very true for me.

No mention of theft??

"Virgin Australia stole $4500 from me"

Aside from that, if you think it's "perfectly reasonable" to allege that someone said something that they did not actually say, that's up to you, but I don't share that view.

 

[Pushka]

What is the title of the thread? That is fairly explicit in what it is accusing.

No mention of theft??

"Virgin Australia stole $4500 from me"

Aside from that, if you think it's "perfectly reasonable" to allege that someone said something that they did not actually say, that's up to you, but I don't share that view.

Ah, good points! Guess I don’t read headers all that well.

Thread is getting too long and I just read the first page. What did OP allege someone said and they didn’t?

What is theft? Intent to permanently deprive. Well, I guess the detail suggests they weren’t going to give it back, were they!

 

[Jack_OC]

Thread is getting too long and I just read the first page. What did OP allege someone said and they didn’t?

Seriously??! People are already having a go at me for repeatedly saying the same thing!

 

[Pushka]

Seriously??! People are already having a go at me for repeatedly saying the same thing!

Well yes and I just did a quick read of the thread itself. You seem more banged up by the fact he did not reference a particular paragraph than the actual outcome, which was that the OP was correct in that he had been overcharged, and Virgins original response was that the OP was wrong and would not be getting a refund. I think the OP has given a lot of personal information here.

What is theft? Intent to permenantly deprive. If systems are so rubbish that Virgin’s check of the transaction originally thought that there was no refund due, when OP had screenshots confirming otherwise, then what is theft? Not individually based but institutional perchance. Kind of like Banks maybe.

 

[opusman]

I think the OP has given a lot of personal information here.

A lot of irrelevant, personal information. Which makes his claim of redacting the key paragraph in the letter because it was "irrelevant" even more laughable.