Glad I only put a couple of grand a month through my card (no business expenses, and only spend at places that won't accept the Amex). I agree that it looks as though there might be more and more of these letters going out.
What I don't get though, is that surely they are making money on the purchases, so why do they care. It's a platinum card, so IIRC that equates to a fee of approx 3.5% to the merchant. Surely this would easily cover the cost of the points they are giving away?
I think you're getting platinum cards mixed up with Amex or Diners!! Merchant fees for Platinum cards are generally about half that! And that's only for those merchant providers who separately charge for premium cards - not all do (Westpac being one that doesn't), so in that case, the rate would usually be significantly lower than 1.75%.
I'm sorry, I don't buy all this self policing business. Suspicious behaviour is not enough in my books. What does suspicious even mean? 200K a month? Doesn't point to business use by any measure. I may be wealthy and enjoying the wealth.
Why don't they just tell the truth and come right out with a business use definition or, more sensibly perhaps, just tell folks that they can't spend more then $27.50 on groceries every week because anything else will get the card cancelled.
These recent posts have been a giant heads-up for me though. I don't use this card for business as I always viewed it as a groceries and fuel card, however, I have used it on holidays and having it cancelled whilst overseas would be a big pain.
I'll pursue other more mainstream 1:1 earning master/visa card I think.
Suspicious behaviour is different from behaviour that would be difficult to argue, such as paying BAS!
As for enjoying your wealth, as someone else posted, disclosing an income of x and then charging significantly more than that to the card is not enjoying your wealth, it's having your cake and eating it too! You can't minimise your tax and then expect to have all the benefits of someone with a higher disclosed income.
You also seem to be forgetting that lenders have to abide by consumer protection laws when providing credit (in this case, NCCP) - I suspect it makes it easier if they just have separate cards for personal and business purposes, rather than having issues with breaching the law at a later date. Again, I'm not saying that lenders don't hide behind this to avoid points liabilities.
If my card was cancelled as a result of School Fees then I would challenge the cancellation with Financial Ombudsman Service. At the very least it will force them into revealing the reason for the cancellation.
Home Page :: Primary
It should be noted though, that if the card specifically excludes Business Transactions and people continue to put Business Transactions through the card then you really have nobody to blame but yourself. It doesn't matter if you think you should be allowed to because of the money they make or because they charge a transaction fee, it's a breach of the terms and conditions you accepted.
Financial Ombudsman Service would not force the card issuer to disclose the reason for the card cancellation if it is within the t&c's and the t&c's are not illegal, which I don't believe them to be, given all loan agreements have similar clauses.
Lenders never disclosure their reasons for declining or withdrawing credit and they are under no obligation to.
That's not to say I think what HSBC have done is always right.
But consumer law always overrides T&C's if they are found to be un-fair or illegal.
Just because it is written, does not make it law...
Agreed, but I don't believe that the t&c's in this case breach any law.
but it looks as though the large monthly spend and paying school fees as part of that caused ronicat's card to be cancelled
