Virgin Australia overcharged me $4500

[Pushka]

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.

I guess I look at outcomes. The OP received his refund. He was in the right. The fact he didn’t post it here seems kind of irrelevant given we are not involved in the resolution process. It does not take anything away from his principle point that Virgin refused to return the money they had deducted when they shouldn’t have done so. And then THAT paragraph states that Virgin did not consider they were in the wrong. Yet they were. If anything it confirms the OPs stand that Virgin did not want to refund his money and if their systems are so poor they could not see the error then that’s another story.

 

[Jack_OC]

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.

What I am “banged up” about is not a failure to reference a paragraph, but rather a deliberate concealment of a paragraph that completely contradicted what the OP was alleging.

BTW, I have no way of knowing what the outcome was. Not sure why you seem to think you know exactly how or why it was resolved?

Aside from the issue that I have banged on about, there is clearly something missing later on in the story as well. In the space of two days, VA apparently went from a final answer (“no”) to issuing a refund immediately by bank transfer for the excess charges plus credit card interest (which may just about have started to accrue, but which the OP would not even have paid yet).

None of that is consistent with how VA normally process refunds - IME they refund to the original form of payment (credit card in this case) and it takes about 5-10 days after they agree to refund. So, if this resolution played out as the OP describes, there must have been something more behind it than simply another phone call to VA. Something that led to someone (presumably very senior) overriding their normal refund procedures. It would be interesting to know what that missing something was - eg getting a lawyer involved? The OP suggested on Twitter he was going down that road. In any case, my takeaway from this whole saga is that the OP is being very selective in what he is revealing, which makes it impossible for us to know what actually went on here. And that, in a nutshell, is why the redaction of the email is important.

 

[Pushka]

What I am “banged up” about is not a failure to reference a paragraph, but rather a deliberate concealment of a paragraph that completely contradicted what the OP was alleging.

BTW, I have no way of knowing what the outcome was. Not sure why you seem to think you know exactly how or why it was resolved?

Aside from the issue that I have banged on about, there is clearly something missing later on in the story as well. In the space of two days, VA apparently went from a final answer (“no”) to issuing a refund immediately by bank transfer for the excess charges plus credit card interest (which may just about have started to accrue, but which the OP would not even have paid yet).

None of that is consistent with how VA normally process refunds - IME they refund to the original form of payment (credit card in this case) and it takes about 5-10 days after they agree to refund. So, if this resolution played out as the OP describes, there must have been something more behind it than simply another phone call to VA. Something that led to someone (presumably very senior) overriding their normal refund procedures. It would be interesting to know what that missing something was - eg getting a lawyer involved? The OP suggested on Twitter he was going down that road. In any case, my takeaway from this whole saga is that the OP is being very selective in what he is revealing, which makes it impossible for us to know what actually went on here. And that, in a nutshell, is why the redaction of the email is important.

He received his refund? In a curious method. Suggests that something is rotten somewhere but not in the OPs bank account. My thoughts of Virgin are very much coloured by the nasty letter they sent me. That I chucked away so can’t post here. It still happened though

 

[RAM]

a bit of a mia culpa.

Time for your mEA culpa....

Unless your surname is Farrow?

 

[theblank]

Did you not read upthread? They did exactly that.

Did you not read upthread, they did no such thing at all.

Threaten closure of account. I received a letter from VA a couple of years ago threatening to cancel my membership if I ever (dared) make a chargeback to my credit card for a refund that took many weeks to happen.

Virgin reminding you of the terms and conditions is not a threat, its advice, and its proper that they should so.. It is you that threatened them with a fraud (charging back a transaction that you have previously approved is fraud)

 

[Pushka]

Did you not read upthread, they did no such thing at all.






Virgin reminding you of the terms and conditions is not a threat, its advice, and its proper that they should so.. It is you that threatened them with a fraud (charging back a transaction that you have previously approved is fraud)

I call a refund that is promised within a certain period of time, and is not delivered in THEIR stated time period, (and well after that period of time, with no communications returned during that time), fraudulent.

I see the Heading has changed.

 

[serfty]

Virgin reminding you of the terms and conditions is not a threat

Except there is no relevant text within the Velocity T&C's in relation to closing a Velocity Account in the event of a charge-back.

 

[opusman]

1. A newbie starts a thread bashing Virgin.
2. Some people point out the problem of missing/hidden information.
3. Other people who obviously have a problem with Virgin start bashing the people from #2.
4. And so it goes...

 

[straitman]

Virgin reminding you of the terms and conditions is not a threat, its advice, and its proper that they should so.. It is you that threatened them with a fraud (charging back a transaction that you have previously approved is fraud)

Are you serious with that comment? If so I cannot understand your logic at all and really think you have it backwards.

1. A newbie starts a thread bashing Virgin.
2. Some people point out the problem of missing/hidden information.
3. Other people who obviously have a problem with Virgin start bashing the people from #2.
4. And so it goes...

There is no problem with disagreeing so long as people are prepared to understand that others will/may not always agree with them.

 

[fitzy]

I don’t post much on AFF but do lurk reasonably frequently. I sent this thread to a couple of non-forum regulars to get their view on OP’s post and the subsequent commentary – thought some of you might be interested to hear what some outsiders thought of the behaviour – because for AFF to continue to grow, we need to be approachable to outsiders and not scare them off:

“Oh man. I never realised 1. How defensive people are of airlines and 2. How many conspiracy theorists are also passionate frequent flyers.”

“Why are people so eager to stan for a massive corporation? As if these companies wouldn’t happily screw you over for $0.05”

“You aren’t a super detective finding holes in the OP’s story m8, Calm down”

Just food for thought. We should be a welcoming community.

 

[Pushka]

1. A newbie starts a thread bashing Virgin.
2. Some people point out the problem of missing/hidden information.
3. Other people who obviously have a problem with Virgin start bashing the people from #2.
4. And so it goes...

Ah really? The OP’s concern was twofold. 1. Receiving the money that he could genuinely prove should be refunded, and 2, in obtaining his legitimate refund, ensure his WP account wasn’t suspended.

My problem with Virgin is that I’ve been threatened with account closure for doing something (chargeback to credit card) that many suggested here was the appropriate response for the OP and I would have thought that EVERY flier might just have developed negative thoughts towards a company that does issue such threats when one of their customers legitimately files such a claim when their service standards as stated by them, are ignored. So I can confirm to the OP that his fear of suspension, even when in the ‘right’, is legitimate.

Hidden information? Sure, a paragraph stating that Virgin were refusing to accept the claim. Clearly that was stated in error given the OP now has his refund. So it bears little in relation to the claim.

 

[Jack_OC]

I don’t post much on AFF but do lurk reasonably frequently. I sent this thread to a couple of non-forum regulars to get their view on OP’s post and the subsequent commentary – thought some of you might be interested to hear what some outsiders thought of the behaviour – because for AFF to continue to grow, we need to be approachable to outsiders and not scare them off:

You rarely post on AFF, but you are so concerned about the growth of the forum that you went to the trouble of sending a link to this thread to other people who don't post on AFF, asking them to email their feedback to you, so you could post it here on their behalf?

That's one of the most peculiar things I've ever read.

There is no problem with disagreeing so long as people are prepared to understand that others will/may not always agree with them.

It's not even that some people are unwilling to tolerate disagreement. Initially, some people took issue with others just asking what was in the redacted paragraph.

Apparently in the minds of some people, if anyone posts any complaint about an airline, we should all just accept every word as Gospel truth, avoid questioning anything, and just automatically join the angry mob slating the airline. The term echo chamber springs to mind …...

 

[Dr Paris]

Thanks to whoever changed the title, it was a bit of hyperbole, in hindsight. But I was pretty stressed out at the time.

Anyway, carry on...

 

[JohnK]

Virgin reminding you of the terms and conditions is not a threat, its advice, and its proper that they should so.. It is you that threatened them with a fraud (charging back a transaction that you have previously approved is fraud)

One of my biggest issues is when a company takes money immediately but when they have to give the money back it takes 7-10 days but in the case of airlines it can take 6 weeks or more. Sorry that's not good enough. Would be nice if someone was able to give a justifiable explanation of why this is the case. Because they can is not justifiable. I firmly push until I get what I want. Threatening me with account closure makes no sense.

I guess we don't have the whole story but I'd be surprised if the OP okayed $4500 to be taken for the upgrade bids and then changed their mind. So what happened? Virgin decided that's what they are going to charge as the bids were outside the bid upgrade window? You can't make that decision without first getting getting approval from the customer.

As I said earlier this sounds like a glitch that Virgin tried to cover and not acknowledge.

 

[juddles]

I don’t post much on AFF but do lurk reasonably frequently. I sent this thread to a couple of non-forum regulars to get their view on OP’s post and the subsequent commentary – thought some of you might be interested to hear what some outsiders thought of the behaviour – because for AFF to continue to grow, we need to be approachable to outsiders and not scare them off:







Just food for thought. We should be a welcoming community.

Which thread did you send them??? "Why are people so eager to stand for a massive corporation" ??? Can someone please point me to a single poster who stood up for Virgin??

People defending airlines, conspiracy theories??

 

[RAM]

Companies make mistakes and frequently profit from them - cue various Royal Commissions etc.

Out-sourcing creates even more conflict over self-interest of sub-contractor vs VA vs customer.

Who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who cares about the outcome for the customer?

Just today I have had the joy of finding that AMEX backdates the annual card fee to the anniversary of the date they internally approved your cc application NOT the date your CC is either mailed out, nor the date received by the customer nor the date the customer activates it. So you are charged the annual fee before you receive the card!

Nowhere on the AMEX site for your CC account do they detail this nor do they provide the date so that you know.

So if there is say an 11 day gap between internal approval and card received - you have been paying the annual fee backdated those 11 days despite no service received or capacble of being used.

First call - 49 minutes 43 seconds.
Guaranteed call back within 3 hours - epic fail as of typing it is now 4h 21m later.

BTW 3rd call to AMEX over failed AMEX OFFER (15% off Agoda booking) on 30th May still not responded to despite account records showing issue elevated.


Given past experience with VA - anythng is possible.

Unfortunately poor customer service/gouging/denying refunds etc is just as prevalent with Qantas, Jetstar etc etc.

For newbies - do a search on Qantas US downgrade no compensation - very revealing.

 

[JessicaTam]

Thanks to whoever changed the title, it was a bit of hyperbole, in hindsight. But I was pretty stressed out at the time.

Anyway, carry on...

I wish they wouldn't!

 

[TripleB]

charging back a transaction that you have previously approved is fraud

Fraud requires has both a deception and dishonest element.

Simply initiating a chargeback (which is a contractual right as between you and your credit card company essentially to a review) is most unlikely to meet the deceptive element.

 

[theblank]

I call a refund that is promised within a certain period of time, and is not delivered in THEIR stated time period, (and well after that period of time, with no communications returned during that time), fraudulent.

why are you replying(quoting) to me.
do you actually read what you reply to? this has nothing to do with anythinhg, let alone something I have raised

 

[theblank]

Except there is no relevant text within the Velocity T&C's in relation to closing a Velocity Account in the event of a charge-back.

Understood, but I would imagine that if a person has not paid what he owes to the business, then he is in default with the business and there would be relevent text in the T&C about that. Its a fairly standard thing for any service.

Yes. I know the outcome was that VA made a mistake and overcharged him. Howver the initial view from VA was that he was correctly charged and he used the service he paid for. It would seem very obvioous that he threatened VA with a chargeback, and they let him know what the outcome of that might be. The customer service agent that told him that is doing him a favour, its not a threat.

Most of you are forgetting that the customer service staff have no motive to either stealing money from clients, or be cancelling the account.