Who has received a call from ING Direct for splitting purchase to get 5%

Lpaloverde88 on 08/08/2014 - 12:33
Last edited 08/08/2014 - 12:37

Hi

I know many here rave about ING and for the most part they seemed a less rip off than most banks.

Recently I bought something from jb hifi that was $379 I asked jb if i could split that into 4 payments so I can get my cash back from ING jb had no issues.

I have had the account few months now, suddenly ING rang me to "chastise" me and warned me that I am not allowed to split a purchase into smaller portions to get cash back. They warned that they will take away this feature if it happens again.

In my defense I stated no fraud was committed here and no crime was committed. It was only 1 purchase and in the scheme of things $379 split into 4 portions is not $3790 split into 400 portions. Further this sort of things needs to be stated on day 1 when I had the account, not months later. This is only for 6 months not forever. Also I do not recall under the terms and condition that I have read then when I open the account have stated that , it may be that they have changed the terms and condition now that they see this happening.

They made accusations that I am not using it as an everyday transactions account. They further went on to say had there not been a 5% cash back I would never have split my purchase 4 times, so they are insinuating I am somehow trying to commit something clandestine here.

Dissatisfied they rang me on a Friday morning insinuating somehow I was doing something as clandestine as making a purchase and choosing how I best see fit to protect my interest, I told them I will contact fair trading and ASIC about what just happened.

Of course they then went through this spill on how the call was recorded, how everything I say is noted. Again more "threats". The way I see it appears banks run the show, not the law, it seemed everything they do is protected, they do not seemed concern that their approach is not correct.

I cannot think of any other industry except insurance companies that behave this way.

Any comments as to what they did was petty and disgusting?

Financial

Related Stores

ING
ING

Comments

  • Nutrino on 08/08/2014 - 12:50
    +19

    I think the general concensus is that its only for purchases under 100. This has been discussed many times before. Just do a search.

      • johnno07 on 11/08/2014 - 09:47
        +13

        I'm not really sure what the heck you're talking about IVI… but I'm pretty sure it's terrible advice… whatever it is.

      • Tech5 on 12/08/2014 - 08:43

        What are you even saying

      • Dan_ on 12/08/2014 - 13:37

        I'm pretty sure they've reserved the right to decide what are and are not "normal" purchases in the T&Cs you've agreed to.

        In which case, you have no leg to stand on.

  • geek001 on 08/08/2014 - 13:12
    +6

    Hmm.. I wonder if when you paid for the item, you split the transactions into 5 uneven amounts of money that add up to 379, would that be picked up by ING Direct? It would hard for them to prove that the 5 transactions are all part of 1 sale and hassle you about it. What's to say you didn't buy 5 separate things from JB Hifi?

    I mean I do something similar when doing groceries at the self checkout and I never got a phone call. Basically, what I do, is I scan my groceries till I am just over $30, pay and then start scanning the next lot to get more 4c/l coupons. I have seen some people buy groceries for their flatmate and split their groceries into 2 transactions. Isn't that perfectly innocent?

    • edgar28 on 11/08/2014 - 11:39
      +1

      The paypass under 100 dollars limit was a security measures that does not allow you to tag multiple times in the same shop for a short period of time……….

      overseas they follow that strictly, i.e if the 2nd tag goes over 100 dollars in total , you will need a pin. In Australia……. it's security breach, people steal your card could multiple tap and suck you dry……

  • plmko on 08/08/2014 - 13:14
    +96

    "Recently I bought something from jb hifi that was $379 I asked jb if i could split that into 4 payments"

    Newbie mistake.

    You want to go stealth? Separately buy 3 X $100 Gift cards at Woolsworth/Big W, pay $99.95 with paywave and 5c coin. (scan your Everyday rewards card for petrol bonus or Qantas too)

    Then go to JB with your $300 gift cards, and then paywave the last $79.

    To be even more sure, you can buy the gift cards over a few days.

      • plmko on 09/08/2014 - 01:27
        +21

        Whilst I don't bother doing it anymore, since all my deals are expired. I've never received a call from them before.

        This is why I said buy all your gift cards separately, how can they claim you are abusing it if you shopped at different stores and on different days, they'd be grasping at straws trying to insinuate anything.

        In the end of the day, if you want the 5%, do it discretely and plan your moves. I've gotton away with buying something as expensive as $600+ doing this at JB.

        If you get a call from any company, do not answer any of their BS threat questions, do not threaten them, just answer their basic questions and keep repeating to them that they are all separate transactions from local legitimate business and that you understand that they have no right to know what you've bought or why because this is exactly how they'd answer your questions should something come up.

      • andyken on 10/08/2014 - 19:17

        Rrpeat and split transactions are different

        • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 08:26
          -3

          To buy something for $99.95, be sure to pay $1 of it in Cash. The limit is $99, AFAIK.

          To buy -multiple- Gift Cards safely, I'd say:

          • buy 1 per grocery purchase at different time or on different days, & ALWAYS paying all but $99 in cash.
        • rushil01 on 12/08/2014 - 09:16

          @IVI:

          No the limit is under $100 so you could technically do $99.99 and you'd be fine.

    • kzrocky on 10/08/2014 - 21:32
      +7

      That is the best ever answer on this site. It even surpasses tightarse.

      • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 08:44
        -8

        +1, PROVIDED you bought your Gift Cards carefully, across several earlier transactions, as we suggested above.

        I appreciate ING's competitiveness & creativity, eg, in such offers, but once an offer is made & accepted…

        • surveillance of its Customers, who use it creatively
          . is unconscionable & unacceptable, IMO

        Consider: ING is only able to make such offers because they:

        • pay no rent for "bricks-&-sticks" branches (last time
          . we checked, they had just 2 branches - for all of AU)

        • pay no local employees, to man those non-existing branches

        • pay for none of the other services that they'd be paying for (eg, cleaning, window washing, etc.), if they had branches across AU.

        While we -applaud- ING Direct chutzpah to creatively "disrupt" its own industry, thus helping to drag AU's banking industry a bit closer to the Future…

        Who (perhaps reading this or similar comments, eg, in media) will:

        • apply similar creativity & disrupt Retail Auto Sales or Real Estate markets, ie, like ING Direct have done in Retail Banking? (many, I hope!)

        However, I -don't- forgive ING Direct for, eg:

        • paying their staff to ring & insult their own Customers, who follow ING's example, ie, by creatively using ING's services & offers

        • removing or reducing the (offered & accepted) 5% reward, ie, for using PayWave ("wave & save" while 5% rewards applied) technology to help speed store's customers through the long urban queues.

        Perhaps a class action is justified?

        Or a Social Media blitz, at least?

        Letters to Editors, blog posts, Facebook comments on ING's FN site… etc….?

        You decide. Then tell us how you've decided to respond.

  • ESEMCE on 08/08/2014 - 13:17
    +36

    They further went on to say had there not been a 5% cash back I would never have split my purchase 4 times

    Are you seriously denying that's the case?

    Any comments as to what they did was petty and disgusting?

    If anything, what you're doing is petty.

    Of course they then went through this spill on how the call was recorded, how everything I say is noted. Again more "threats".

    Standard practice for any call what makes this time a threat any more than any other time a company talks to you on the phone?

    You've been warned that you're improperly gaming the system, you should be thankful that they didn't just cancel your access to this benefit.
    Fair Trading and ASIC will thank you for communicating with them before discarding your complaint and laughing (or bitching) about it with their office mates.

      • Baysew on 09/08/2014 - 10:01
        +8

        Surely staff at ASIC and Fair Trading had a big laugh. But now look who's laughing?

        ASIC and Fair Trading did nothing.

        It was Law firm Maurice Blackburn that took the case, with the support of listed litigator IMF, on behalf of 38,000 customers in a class action.

        ASIC and Fair Trading will not get to excited over your claim of entitlement.

        • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 22:10
          -2

          The point is when nothing is open to scrutiny and transparency then we will never know if it was even legal under law.

          I was never going to complain about this to the powers to be just so I can get them shriveling in excitement. It was mainly to clarify and out of principal.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 11:25

          @paloverde88:

          What you did is against the law. It's called 'Obtaining a financial advantage by deception'. Or fraud in the old term. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s…

          Out of principal? Bahahaha….

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 12:53
          -1

          @boomer:

          Last time I checked, commonwealth bank financial advisors obtained financial advantage by deception such as forging customer signature, not only got promoted no one went to jail.

        • Ughhh on 11/08/2014 - 13:25

          @paloverde88:
          Are you saying that just because they got away with it (if so), then it's ok for you or anyone to commit such crimes?

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:40
          -2

          @JLove:

          All I'm saying is that you have much bigger fish to fry with all your "holier than thou" attitude go do something about those fraud that actually hurts people.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2014 - 01:15

          @paloverde88: I reckon what you're doing also "hurts people" - the other people who are with ING and don't exploit loopholes to gain the most out of the cashback offer. The more people that are busted doing it (like yourself), the more likely that ING could pull the plug on the offer and then everyone loses out.

          So yeah, if you wanna really stick it to the bigger fish, maybe don't do something that really only potentially screws over the other small fish such as yourself.

      • ESEMCE on 08/08/2014 - 14:38
        +13

        what they say is pure speculation and self serving

        Evidence based speculation that you've admitted to here..

        Self Serving? How so? You're the one who is gaming the system for your own self interest.

        Here's the relevant part of the Terms and Conditions for the current 2% cashback offer. I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999% sure that the same language was in the terms for your 5% offer.
        Should this offer be used in a manner that is not satisfactory or in line with the intent of the offer, we may place a stop or freeze on your account, refuse to apply the rebate to any or all purchases, or reverse the amount of the cash backs. ING DIRECT cannot guarantee that payWave facilities will be available for use for your chosen purchase.
        (emphasis added) https://www.campaigns.ingdirect.com.au/everyday-banking

        • ESEMCE on 09/08/2014 - 09:31
          +15

          @paloverde88:
          You were fully aware of the restrictions to the PayWave system and worked around them..
          It's a loophole, I get it.
          But clearly (and pretty obviously to me and the 4 people who've voted you down, I wasn't one of them), they do not see it as being " in line with the intent of the offer".

          They've been polite enough to call you to tell you not to do it again instead of just cancelling your account or your access to the deal (as they reserve the right to do in the terms of the offer) and you're bitching about it.
          You haven't lost anything (but a bit of pride) and I suspect their lawyers would be quite happy to face up to you in a court of law to argue over the legalities even if you had lost something.
          As previousy stated, get over yourself, use the nice little bonus wisely or leave.
          And good luck in life, cause if you're truly this soft skinned you're really going to need it!

        • sigh on 10/08/2014 - 23:27
          +7

          @paloverde88:
          Scubacoles is right, the offer is for paywaves transactions under $100 , you transaction was for $379, you just aaked for it to be split up to corcumvent the $100 limit on paywave transactions. The effort you went to to circumvent the limitations put on paywave transactions to get 5% back at ING's expense breached the t&c's of their offer AND the security measures offered to protect paywave transactions from fraud.
          By asking the retailer to split the transactions you're actually asking them to breach the agreements they have with their banking institutions providing their EFTPOS facilities and can make them entirely accountable if you were using a stolen credit card. No ifs or buts about it. That is why retailers are not supposed to split transactions for wave, employees are not meant to do this and as we have seen before in these forums some good ones won't but self entitled persons like yourself think they are wrong when they are just doing their job, protecting their job (because you can be fired for breaching your employers rules) and protecting their employers assests against fraud

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 09:00
      -4

      So, by you:

      • ING Direct's creativity to disrupt the Aussie banking industry is Good (I Agree with this)… but

      • ING Customers' creativity to maximize their gain from a lowly 5% reward offer is Evil? (I vehemently Disagree with this)

      Creativity should be Encouraged on BOTH fronts, IMO.

      PS A bonus to other business & the Aussie economy has not been mentioned here:

      • When folks buy MORE or EARLIER, local businesses & our economy win.

      Rather than insulting & penalising its own Customers' creativity, I think ING Direct should go after a percentage of the gains, which local businesses & maybe gov'ts have had (ie, greater sales & GST incomes, resp.)

      ING Direct could well have created an offer to businesses & / gov't, ie, before their 2nd & further offers of 5% - eg "Help Us Stimulate Growth by Spending" (a traditional, if feeble-minded, Aussie tradition, IMO).

      PS Better if AU could create offers that put $$ aside to develop & roll-out onshore use of safe, cheap, green "Energy from Thorium" via "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors" (coming soon to .CA, .CN & maybe .IN; it's just around the corner, & we need to invest in & prepare for its rewards), IMO.

      Cf: CSIRO's free eBook "A Curious Country" in the Chapter on "Energy" (from ANU.edu.au)

      • Ughhh on 11/08/2014 - 10:18
        +4

        On the other hand, a bag of potatoes.

      • donga100 on 12/08/2014 - 20:11

        PS Better if AU could create offers that put $$ aside to develop & roll-out onshore use of safe, cheap, green "Energy from Thorium" via "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors" (coming soon to .CA, .CN & maybe .IN; it's just around the corner, & we need to invest in & prepare for its rewards), IMO.

        Joe Hockey should have signed up for an ING account and split the payments for all the government purchases such as NBN, private jet travel, fighter jets, etc. The money from the 5% rebate could then be put towards Thorium.

  • RockyRaccoon on 08/08/2014 - 13:29
    +15

    It was only 1 purchase and in the scheme of things $379 split into 4 portions is not $3790 split into 400 portions

    Yes you honour I only murdered one not a hundred, so its not murder.

    You split a purchase to game the system, so you gamed it. Doesnt matter if its one or 400 games. Its gaming. You got caught! Be a man accept what you did was wrong and move on.

    As Scubacoles said, be thankful they didnt cancel your account, you can at least still get 5% on legitimate deals as the maker intended.

      • RockyRaccoon on 08/08/2014 - 20:50
        +11

        Read Scubacoles earlier response on - Intent of the offer.

        My point is you acknowledge that if it was $3790 it wouldn't be ok, so the degree makes it legitimate? its NOT, that was the point of my example.

        Paywave is to make transactions faster. Swipe and go. So now you make the retailer swipe 4 times that in itself defeats the idea of paywave.

        Also inbuilt into Paywave is protection against fraud that could impact on a financial institution and probably the retailer. Since no signature is needed, if your card gets stolen, then there are limits on how it can be used.

        You know what you intended to do, the conditions are there, if you didn't read them that is your problem. Now ING didn't cancel your card or the deal, they just rang you to say DONT do it AGAIN.

        Now you get in a huff and you want to bring in all sorts of inappropriate action. ASIC is the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. They have NOTHING to do with consumer law issues. Shares, corporate governance.

        Now you expect us to say that you were harshly treated, hell if I was on the other line when you threatened ASIC action, I would have asked if you intended to use your paywave card to pay for the legal degree you would need to take… :)

        • shortgum on 09/08/2014 - 00:20
          +2

          I'm understanding you.

          You should next time buy a few JB gift cards e.g. $90 then purchase the whole thing in one go so avoid this.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 09:25
      -3

      I don't get why you see creativity as Evil…?

      Something from our historical colonial period, maybe?

      Why don't you go on to claim that ING Direct was "gaming" the banking industry's opportunities, eg by reducing its costs (ie, by noy hiring local staff & not leasing, furnishing or maintaining local branches), in a similar vein?

      Of course, ING's creativity made this 5% reward scheme possible.

      I have no doubts that ING is far ahead of its "bricks & sticks" competitors, who use "our" money for such unnecessary expenditures, as those listed above, & more besides, & fail to match ING's rewards offers, as a result.

      [Like Russell Peters ;-)] I say: "Do the Right Thing" (ie, accept Creativity - on BOTH sides - as Good).

  • donbot on 08/08/2014 - 13:58
    +25

    ING dont like what you are doing.. a few things to remember:

    • No-one is forcing you to bank with ING or any other 'rip off bank'
    • They write the rule book. If you dont want to play by their rules, they'll kick you out of their game.
    • AFAIK they are within their right to withdraw the cashback at any point in time for whatever reason. I'm almost willing to Guarantee this is in the terms and conditions if you'd bother to read through it.

    They didnt like what you were doing, warned you about it and you're claiming ASIC and Fair Trading? I sincerely hope you realise how stupid this is.

    Quit looking a gift horse in the mouth before it bites you back.

    • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 21:04
      -7

      No one is forcing ING to run a special such as this one.

      Just because you write the rule book does not mean it is above the law. Pay Day lenders write their rule books and charge 600% interest preying on the vulnerable, and was taken to court and was deemed to have no morals or ethics. So it does not mean you write the rule book you will be 100% correct and 100% lawful.
      The offer is only for 6 months anyways and this offer is no longer active since June.
      I must remember I must be "liked" by the banks to do business with them and it's a one way street. It does not work the other way around.

      • txb on 10/08/2014 - 00:12
        +3

        Well said.

      • Parentheses on 11/08/2014 - 01:40
        +3

        Of course it works the other way around, you can go to a credit union, or store your money in a sock under your mattress.

        None of those options gives you free money though, so you are here whining about how unfair life is. People like you make people with legitimate issues with shady business practices look bad. There is a point where you stop being an ozbargainer and start being a cheapshit, you need to look around for that line.

      • chukkii on 11/08/2014 - 07:32
        +1

        Pay Day lenders write their rule books and charge 600% interest preying on the vulnerable, and was taken to court and was deemed to have no morals or ethics. So it does not mean you write the rule book you will be 100% correct and 100% lawful.

        Yes but in that case, lenders was causing crippling debt on the vulnerable.

        In your case they're telling you they're about to stop doing business with you. They're not fining you for the transaction, just warning you you're about to be cut off as a customer.

        You think pay day lenders would have gotten in trouble for refusing customers?

        • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 11:34
          -4

          Last time we checked pawn-shops were also acting like "poverty traps" for AU's poor:

          • charging (in SA) upwards of 300% interest for "short-term loans" (even with collateral, to sell, on default)

          Both "check-cashers" 600% & pawn-shops' ~300% interest rates would be deemed UNLAWFUL as Usury, ie, in civilised countries.

          I - for one - do not support AU acting like a "banana replubic"

          In 1866, a limit of 10% was set in AU (in WA)… dunno if WA still abides by such a law, but it would speak well of WA if they did, IMO.

          Cf: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/num_act/uaous30vn1447/…

        • chukkii on 13/08/2014 - 10:46

          @IVI:

          that's not my point….

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 09:32
      -2

      Inserting an open-ended "…and whatever we dream up, later" clause (in other, nicer-sounding words, into a Rewards agreement) & paying their "Customer Care" staff to ring & insult their Customers, ie, AFTER the fact…

      • doesn't sound like good Customer Service to me

      I doubt that Customers were told -specifically- how to & how NOT to win their 5% Reward bonuses.

      Advising people - in advance - that they'd be rung-up & insulted at home, by ING staff would certainly have put them off signing up, IMO.

  • JordanM on 08/08/2014 - 14:31
    +2

    The Rebates are subject to change and are intended to be used for everyday purchases only. Should you use the Rebates in a manner that is not satisfactory or in line with the intent of the offer, we may place a stop or freeze on your account or remove the account from the rebate.

    ^ Was listed on the bottom of an email I received back in February, this term has been on the account for awhile (although it was not originally)

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 09:39
      -4

      WHAT?!? "put a stop or freeze on your account"…?!? WTF ING?

      I had NO idea ING had gone so far with their willingness to ABUSE Customers.

      We are CLOSING -all- (personal, business & organisational) of our ING Direct & ING Super accounts… TODAY!

      (Australia or not, ING have gone WAY too far, this time, IMO.)

  • seraphim2017 on 08/08/2014 - 14:43

    Yes had the call.

    Cheked the T's and C's. they wording wouldn't stand up against a decent judge. 'Up to how we see your transactions' essentially.

    It picks up time stamped so it doesn't matter if you do it via groceries or run in 5 minutes later because you forgot toilet roll, they get a computerised red flag. The JB hi-fi was probably the proverbial straw, as was mine (except in my case it was 3 identical gifts which I needed separate receipts for so that they could return it if faulty, but I'd imagine looked the same to a computers eye).

    pay wave is 'designed' for under $100, but in this day and age, that's not a lot!. I'm more than happy to walk and ING were a little less recalcitrant once I explained they and nab 'were' in the running for my new mortgage but in my T's and C's it states that I dislike being told that an open term can be interpreted the way they want and not the way I want. it's their card and service but they're doing it using the money I loan to them to make their profit, so it works both ways, I don't tell them I don't want ING investing in the arms sales and child labour trade as that's disgusting but i'll bet some of their assets have those going on. They haven't cancelled the card yet and if they do, I'll just switch back to my other fee free cashback cards, plenty to chose and it's them who lose the couple of grand sitting in their coffers, not me, i'll just offset it against the mortgage!

    No, if you are buying cars on it then fair enough but for groceries where it's just over $100, i'd hope they had other things to concern themselves with.

    • Ughhh on 09/08/2014 - 09:43
      +1

      There are so many competition from other places wanting business. The T & C can be interpreted so many ways. The tablet I got from jb to me is a consumable and as such, is an everyday normal transaction.

      You're just interpreting it the way you want to hear it. Do you buy a tablet every day/week? Buying groceries is an everyday transaction, not tablets.

    • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 18:47
      +1

      Why should they refund you the 2.5%? You've used their international transaction service. The fact that you returned the item and got a refund means there are twice the number of transactions to be processed.

      • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 20:51
        -3

        like 2 buttons to press, is it really that tedious in this day of internet to process a financial transaction? Pay Pal seemed to be doing it lightning speed, maybe the banks need to learn a thing or two over the Pay Pal success story.
        The 2.5% charge is only chargeable when the purchase is made, if the sale was cancelled, not necessarily a refund, just a cancelled sale, no sale took place so no charge should be made.

        • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 21:16
          +2

          It was probably entirely automated. But that's besides the point. It's like saying no one lifted a finger when you drove on a toll road so therefore you shouldn't have to pay for it. Or saying that a copy of Windows costs $0.50 to burn on a DVD so that's how much it should cost. Such a simple minded way of looking at things.

          And doesn't Paypal just charge the merchant?

        • RockyRaccoon on 09/08/2014 - 22:51
          +2

          @Dan_:

          The problem is that you me and others here are being rational…

  • Nutrino on 08/08/2014 - 16:35
    +5

    [grabs.popcorn]

  • great-price on 08/08/2014 - 19:05
    +3

    ING closed my account for usage they deemed not in line with the intent of the offer. For me the issue is not that they decided to close my account, but the way they went about it and the very rude phone calls. I have a home loan through ING that is on a fixed rate until October this year and I am counting down the days till the fixed rate period ends and I can re-finance with another bank without a break penalty. I'll never take out a home loan with them again after the rude way they treated me.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 09:54
      -4

      The Banking Ombudsman needs to hear about this, IMO…

      as does Media - both Social & traditional.

      Perhaps those with 5% rewards cards will begin to:

      • Buy ONE (refundable) $99 item (thus win almost $5)…
      • return it a few minutes later (saying, eg: "My wife just SMS'd me to say she'd bought one this morning; we don't need 2 of these. Sorry.")

      (AFAIK, rewards payment are NOT deducted, ie, after a return.)

      It could go viral, eg as an action to Protest undue & unexpected (by me, in any case) harshness, on ING's part.

      I think ING might then re-think its harshness. I hope so..

      • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 11:34

        IVI, you're all talk. You have twice suggested a campaign against ING by social media, but I'll bet you don't do it. You're just trying to get others to do it. And for what? Someone who has admitted to committing the indictable offence of fraud against ING?

        Good luck with your trolling.

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 12:55
          -4

          Indictable offense? Tsk tsk, bring back death penalty then. This must be the most heinous crime imaginable.

        • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 13:27

          @paloverde88:

          Well if someone must suffer the death penalty then it should you seeing as it's pretty black and white to most people other than your deluded self and IVI that you're in the wrong and ING is in the right.

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:41
          -4

          @Dan_: you are absolutely OTT

        • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 19:11
          +1

          @paloverde88: I wasn't that one that suggested the death penalty. You for some reason, brought it up. No one here has suggested the death penalty for fraud but you. I simply said if anyone was to get it, between you and ING, it would be you.

    • shortgum on 09/08/2014 - 00:28
      +2

      you need to do you transaction better to avoid the 'Flag'

      I totally understand how difficult to dealing with any banks when your acting putting onto their radar. Only way to avoid this is follow their methods without get caught like abusing their system.

      Just accept their rude manner, learn from this and move on.

      MEBank card still offer 5% cashback for a change but learn from mistake.

      Your challenge to ING will not do anyone of us any good.

    • Nutrino on 09/08/2014 - 00:50
      +1

      Seriously now, I think your trolling.

      • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 18:52

        That or your typical bank-basher with a massive sense of entitlement.

    • Baysew on 09/08/2014 - 10:16

      If you want to avoid 2.5% fee, try Citibank Plus account. OzBargain

      Most other cc providers charge a Foreign Currency fee on the transaction, just because you have cancelled the sale, won't mean that they will automatically give you the fee back. Foreign currency rates move around,
      there is a buying and selling spread which reflects in a purchase and refund transaction.

    • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 18:51
      +1

      -You have an agreement with ING. And that is you pay a 2.5% commission to ING for providing an intl trans service.

      -You have an agreement with the merchant where he gives you an item in exchange for the purchase price.

      ING has fulfilled their part of the agreement by processing the intl transaction and deducts the 2.5% due.

      The merchant for whatever reason is unable to fulfill his part of the agreement and duly refunds your purchase amount.

      At what point does ING fail to provide what they are charging you for?

      You used your ING account to make an international transaction. The refund that you got is between you and the merchant. Why should ING give you anything?*

      *unless they grant you that entitlement in the T&Cs

    • cookie2 on 13/08/2014 - 22:29
      +2

      has anyone else hit their daily limit for negs???? oh well. ;)

  • emibel19 on 08/08/2014 - 20:03
    +7

    Regardless of what you think, continued behaviour of this sort by you or anyone else will only ruin it for everyone, because ING would probably withdraw the offer, quite possibly including the 2% for all such transactions, even after 6 months membership.

  • Jimpower on 09/08/2014 - 00:58
    +6

    You tried to game the system and they chastised you for doing that, so I don't know what you were trying to achieve here.

  • slix_88 on 09/08/2014 - 01:07
    +7

    So you're on here complaining about why a bank isn't giving you money back (let alone them not charging you anything in the first place)? I think scubacoles hit the hammer on the head with this one; it's clearly stated in the T&C that "Should this offer be used in a manner that is not satisfactory or in line with the intent of the offer, we may place a stop or freeze on your account, refuse to apply the rebate to any or all purchases, or reverse the amount of the cash backs"

    You can deny it all you want but you "gamed" the system. If you purposely split the transaction into amounts under $100 such that the transaction otherwise would have been >$100 just so you could yield the 5% discount then that's "gaming the system" in my opinion.

    Be smart next time. On the plus side, you had nothing to lose since the worst case scenario for you could be to pay for the transaction as you would have otherwise without the ING account.

  • t_c on 09/08/2014 - 08:31

    I split my fuel purchases all the time and have never had a issue.

    However I also have a merchant account and in the terms and conditions it states this:

    The Merchant must not split the value of any
    proposed Transaction into two or more separate
    Transactions.

    So its interesting that retailers even allow it?

    • Baysew on 09/08/2014 - 09:49

      Yes, it leaves the retailer wide open, to have the total amount charged back.

      Say if the OP had card lost or stolen, and someone then went to JB and performed the same series of transactions. The issuing bank (ING) would be able to charge the total amount back to the retailer, as a split sale.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:07

      I think it would fall out of the need to pay one larger amount from smaller amounts of money using 2 [or more] plastic cards.

      The POS system can't check that one card isn't being used several times, since it's -possible- that a check-out operator entered the wrong amount (eg, undercharging the card) & customer OK's another use of the same card, so they can pay the correct total due, with sum of 2 card transactions, on same card.

      If hope ING's harshness, over its 5% rewards scheme, -doesn't- lead to all POS systems being reprogrammed to preclude multiple transactions on 1 card, since that could require some shops to cancel an order, re-scan all the items, & keep people behind the Customer waiting longer…

  • OZB Al on 09/08/2014 - 09:10
    +1

    For banks you want the Financial Ombudsman Service not ASIC. I would be interested to hear what they say, but I don't expect they will get very involved as you have had no financial loss.

    http://www.fos.org.au/resolving-disputes/our-dispute-handlin…

    Sounds like your real complaint is that the bank is using bullying tactics rather than clearly spelling out the terms of their service. You should submit a written complaint to the bank telling them you do not appreciate their bullying.

    • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 21:18
      -7

      Thanks for that information, not everyone here on ozbargain knows how to go about seeking redress on a situation that needs more clarification. It would seem from the responses here we have so many legal experts.

      My only issue is not so much the rebate itself, as you know it was only one transaction out of the millions they see everyday and they felt it was so necessary to merit a call to chastise me over it.

      It's just the way they went about doing it. It has been months since I had the account, it was one small transaction. For an entity like ING not able to get over this in the business of good customer service, I think it is very petty. There is obviously many angles to look at the T and C and what one customer interpret is different from another, previously I believe Mobile phone companies have been fined for not making the terms and condition as clear as crystal. Implied meanings and explicit meanings are all different. I don't have all the time in the world to progress this I just wanted to see what ozbargainers think but it is obvious everyone is happy to stand behind the bank.

      This is despite the fact that it was on ozbargain that I read members suggesting ways to beat the system whenever a business is running a special. Not long ago I read how members here teach each other how they would just benefit by opening an account, get the free bonus of $XX and then close it off. Or members wondering how to beat the system by opening another every day account to beat the 5% cashback expiry. There were so many suggestions by the very same members who now attack me for beating the system. What a bunch of hypocrites.

      • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 21:25
        +7

        We take what we can get but we don't have a sob about it when we don't get what we want.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:17
      -2

      +1

      I can imagine a loss, eg, if one depended on having a functioning ING card - eg, while working FIFO, at a remote mining site - but couldn't pay for fuel, food, etc. due to an unexpectedly-stopped card failing to work.

      Consequential losses could be high, eg, if lack of fuel caused a missed shift, etc.

      • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 13:33
        +1

        You sound like a spoiled child. Unable to grasp the idea of taking responsibility, expecting everyone to be working around your needs and reacting hysterically when you don't get exactly what you want.

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:42
          -1

          I don't think so, I was asking for opinions here, but everything for you here is a value judgment.

  • WT on 09/08/2014 - 09:47
    +20

    Here is what you do

    Build a bridge

    get over it

    must be in that order

    • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 21:52
      -1

      Nothing personal, just pure economics
      Given an opportunity to save money as much as possible any consumer would do it, as long as not breaking the law.

      • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 22:02

        And what the hell makes you think a bank, as with every business ever, wouldn't do the same?

        They've covered themselves in the terms and conditions which you've agreed to, now you're having a cry about them being petty.

        Show me where the T&Cs break the law and then I'll start taking you seriously.

        • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 22:16

          I never said they are not entitled to look out for their interest, but if you read the entire thread and not just selectively then you will see members here have somehow innuendoed that I am trying somehow with magic potion or otherwise , rip the system to shreds.

          I never said they have broken the law I said I do not recall seeing specific clauses in the T and C about purchases of items, item consecutively, same price different price or otherwise same merchant different merchants or otherwise, same time different times or otherwise and the list goes on…having said that, it is therefore arguable that they have made this up along the way as they deem fit and was not clearly stated before the customer signs up. And then they chastise the customer for something they made up on run…

        • twocsies on 11/08/2014 - 14:16

          @paloverde88:

          Assuming the deal is similar to this one: http://www.ingdirect.com.au/everyday-banking.html#important-…
          "The cash back offer applies on contactless Visa payWave purchases under $100 that are made in Australia… Should this offer be used in a manner that is not satisfactory or in line with the intent of the offer, we may place a stop or freeze on your account, refuse to apply the rebate to any or all purchases, or reverse the amount of the cash backs."

          From what I can tell ING are saying that a purchase of a single item in smaller increments less than $100 is not entirely "in line with the intent of the offer". In my opinion, you wouldn't have a lot of wiggle room in the courts here, but they would be satisfied with simply reversing the amount of the cash backs. However because they say "may", I'd say you should negotiate rather than threaten. They will make a lot more than $20 from you if you continue to be their customer, and that's why they offer such a deal.

          Call them back and sweetly tell them you made the purchase in good faith and that if they can give you the cash back, you would like to continue to be a satisfied customer with them. If you're lucky, you will get a customer rep who will be on your side rather than the initial one who called and had the tone of voice that you didn't like.

          Edit: Dictionary says that purchase = the action of buying something. If you buy something with 4 transactions, I think it's still officially a single purchase made with multiple transactions. Similarly I'd think that making a purchase of a $101 item but only using the credit card for $99 with remainder in cash would also be a single purchase >$100 in the legal sense. Just my two cents.

        • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 14:23

          @twocsies: I think he said he did get the cashback. He's here just to whinge and complain because he felt offended by ING asking him not to do it again.

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:44

          @twocsies:

          And while I'm at it, I might just send them a bouquet of flowers too for their such kindness that everything they do is out of the kindness of their virtuous heart, little old me is just evil trying to get my 5% cash back which they themselves offered to give in the first place.

        • malcolmrivera on 11/08/2014 - 20:18
          +1

          @paloverde88: But they offered with that with a set of terms and conditions which they (and many others here) believe you have violated. Then, they told you that you will get the cashback for that purchase, but to not violate those terms and conditions again. Does that not seem completely reasonable?

        • Baysew on 12/08/2014 - 14:18
          +1

          I might just send them a bouquet of flowers

          Make sure the flowers are tulips.

  • noyesmaybeok on 09/08/2014 - 09:59
    +5

    Have the same account. 99.9% sure it says you cannot split 1 purchase into multiple payments.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/08/2014 - 12:11
    +15

    Seriously what is going on. The forums are full of whinging threads like this one these days.

    This is ozbargain not whingebargain.

    • wonderboy on 09/08/2014 - 16:52
      +2

      Wouldn't it be called Ozwhinge?

      • spriggy on 09/08/2014 - 23:54
        +5

        Having whingers is fine, but having whingers who think they're doing the right thing and gets onto forums to whinge about it and expect sympathy does not deserve any sympathy at all.

        I'm sure from the OP's perspective, the multiple purchases is nothing wrong and is absolutely normal. From a morality and values perspective, not everyone is going to agree with this approach.

        I think the way ING talked to you regarding these transactions could be done better. However, would you rather they just cancel your account without even talking to you? I'm sure that is not preferred as you'll like that 5% discount which no other banks offer.

        If you're unhappy with the way ING has treated you, like you said they're just another bank. Why not just go to another bank for your banking needs.

  • c64 on 09/08/2014 - 12:33
    +2

    Also I do not recall under the terms and condition that I have read then when I open the account have stated that , it may be that they have changed the terms and condition now that they see this happening.

    from the t&cs:

    "We may place a stop or freeze on your Orange Everyday if:
    …
    you access any bonuses, credits or rebates in a manner that,
    in our opinion, is not satisfactory or in line with the intent of
    the offer."

    the rebate offer applies to purchases < $100. a $379 purchase is not < $100.

    when my rebate was about to expire i purchased $3k worth of gift cards for woolies/coles/bunnings. fortunately i never receieved any calls.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:20
      -1

      Good for you, but I'm happy not to have been -behind- you in the Coles queue, while you were doing that… ;-)

  • Cluster on 09/08/2014 - 13:25
    +1

    The other aspect of this is splitting large transactions into bite size $100 chunks defeats the purpose of PayWave. It's designed for small quick purchases and has absolutely no security at all. Anyone can steal your card and go on a spending spree. That spending spree (which banks usually cover) is limited by the $100 cap. If you go around making $400 purchases and it's a fraudulent transaction you open the bank to much more financial risk.

    • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 21:22

      I forgot to add jb did photocopy my ID and I was happy to oblige so as to prevent fraud.
      Pay wave is not always time saving, I was at Aldi the other day and I used Pay wave had to wait over 10 minutes transaction cancelled each time after the 3rd time I just put my PIN instead and that still did not work and the cashier said it will have to fallback to signature and yes I had to sign for my purchase, after 10 minutes of delay, so that was not very time saving to use pay wave, it is not fool proof.

      • diddy50 on 10/08/2014 - 01:16

        Same thing at aldi with me. Weird

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join