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

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:25

      Hold on… It's [also] the Customer's risk, eg, if a card thief empties their account, eg, Customer's while away on holiday…

      It must be highly inconvenient to have to stay at a homeless shelter, because you can't pay for the hotel or backpacker inn you booked, at that desto.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2014 - 14:01
    +3

    I did something similar. Got a call from ING. I said no worries, I won't do it again, and that was the end of it. They are giving you money for free so you don't really have a right to complain as far as I'm concerned

  • Associatedhappy819 @ ING on 09/08/2014 - 14:05
    +10

    I was brought up by parents who emphasised that honesty is the best policy & as the saying goes a woman can't be a little bit pregnant & the same principal applies to honesty & also justice. My philosophy is this, "If the roles were reversed, how would you feel"? If more people would apply this principal, then there would be less people like palverde88 attempting to get blood out of a stone. Most banks don't have good reputations, however, what palverde88 is doing smells of the same disease we get from banks. I will not be a part of principals which lower my moral values, as I become like the person(s) or institutions you're attempting to take advantage of, therefore, you become one of them, not very clever!!! So my message to palverde88 is be grateful for small mercies & stop taking advantage of loopholes in INGs' offer & being greedy, as you & others who act this way may well kill off this bonus for the fair minded people in our society, thank you, have an enjoyable weekend.

      • Dan_ on 09/08/2014 - 21:49
        +5

        deal from an offer from a multi billion dollar profit seeking enterprise

        hahaha, it's not a deal if only one party agrees with it.

        Or to be more accurate, you've already agreed to a deal but now you're unhappy because you've realised some of the terms which you've agreed to don't suit you.

        • emoticon on 21/08/2014 - 23:53

          @paloverde88:

          Crimes? not exactly.. you violating the terms and conditions? definitely.

          If you feel so strongly about your position, then leave ING and take your business elsewhere preferably to another bank who regularly gives back to its customers with various bonuses/cashbacks/promotions/no upkeep fees/free any atm use for reg deposits etc.

          I don't think you can name one bank that fits that description. You're kindof scummy for dragging down ING's reputation and also the reputation of it's many legit customers, many of whom are ozbargainers.

          Infact just today a deal was posted which gives $75 free cash for existing ING members. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/157784 . and a while back we got a discount card for movie tickets. little bonuses such as these you wont find any other bank doing with regularity.

          Look at how many downvotes you're getting, obviously you're the one in the wrong.

          You're looking for sympathy but youre not going to get it bud. If I were ING i'd drop you as a customer as youre clearly manipulating the bonus for your own selfish ends.

    • twocsies on 11/08/2014 - 14:29
      -1

      By the same token, don't take offers like this from a bank. Just like any villain, they are appealing to the base nature of humankind. They are encouraging small purchases and not losing anything because they will profit from the credit card fees. But what the human will be trained to do is to get into a position whereby the bank will gain even more through interest fees and obscure charges.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2014 - 14:24

    What a cheap people,
    If you had hundred dollars bill and you do this, you are just another cheap greedy person.
    Get a life

    Do not abuse the system, do not ruin the trust we someday had! do not make hell out of this country!
    ING should take this offer off the abuse by excluding things like vouchers, splitting the bill and so on.

    • shortgum on 09/08/2014 - 15:41
      -1

      @pal you sounded very rude to the him.

      sure paloverde88 will learn from this and better his way on spending

    • Frozensage on 09/08/2014 - 16:09
      +1

      Dunno why u doing at a place like Ozbargain. Just get back on ur high horse and move along!!

    • paloverde88 on 09/08/2014 - 21:39
      -5

      @pal I wonder if a multi billion dollar profit seeking very little tax paying entity such as a foreign bank is any less greedy then a customer seeking the best deal from a purchase, think before you even accuse.

      I would be curious to see how much taxes foreign banks pay to the government.

      • Baysew on 10/08/2014 - 10:07
        +8

        From ING 2013 Annual Report

        Operating Profit Before Tax $385,966,000

        Tax $114,501,000

        Tax Rate 29.666 %

        • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:31

          They would have had expenses to reduce their tax rate, but not as many as other "bricks & sticks" competitors (with branches & employees across AU) would have.

          Tell us their amount of business, on which that profit was earned.

          Then, give competitors' numbers.

          I'll be applauding the more Efficient banks, & I trust that ING will prove to be one of the most efficient, of AU's banks.

          Numbers, please…? :-)

        • Baysew on 11/08/2014 - 18:03

          I added up all the expenses, included those of competitors, amount of business, competitor's numbers. Effiency ratio's etc.

          The number came out to be 42.

        • Eivad on 11/08/2014 - 20:20

          Profits are then distributed to a number of shareholders, including individuals, funds (such as your own super fund, your parents' super fund), etc.

          This 'multi-billion (or in this case, multi-million) dollar profit seeking' company isn't some evil conglomerate / tyrant sitting there stealing your money (it wasn't even your money to begin with, but let's not go there).

          It's just some ordinary person in some shrinkage prevention department investigating people who are gaming the system and, following the rules set out in their own terms and conditions, calling up these gamers and providing a warning.

          Stop whinging

      • c64 on 10/08/2014 - 12:47
        +1

        @paloverde88 i thinks you should be more worried about apple

  • Azn310 on 09/08/2014 - 14:42
    +3

    Mathematically speaking, $3790 would be split into 40 portions :)

    You are playing by ozbargain rules, not INGDirect's rules, so you get caught, they have rights to protect themselves. I think it's quite fair.

    The gift card idea sounds awesome! I reckon you could do it in one day at 3 separate locations? Maybe one at Woolies, one at Big W and one at Coles, in one shopping centre where JB Hifi is also present. Extra 15 mins, no call from INGDirect. Happy days!

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:35
      +1

      If self-serve checkouts accept both cash & card payments, in one transaction, that'd be the place & way to buy those Gift Cards.

      At least, you wouldn't be using a checkout-person's time for your "work-around"… :-)

    • Dalton on 11/08/2014 - 17:18

      38 portions :)

  • Frozensage on 09/08/2014 - 16:08

    I got a call after going 4 x 99 at bunnings. I think it's just the repeated 99 that's raising flags. Now whenever I split a payment, I pick 2 random numbers that adds up to the total.

    • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:36

      Wouldn't multiple uses of same card, in just a few minutes, at same store & checkout, be a clue?

  • Peck on 09/08/2014 - 17:13
    +1

    Those who split payments into more than one ING payment should not be surprised when they do not get an offer to extend the deal by referring a friend. Over $99 split into ONE ING payment and another payment method, including gift cards.

  • RockyRaccoon on 09/08/2014 - 18:10
    -1

    BTW those wanting to buy $100 gift cards can do the following

    Pay $1 cash then put rest on ING card - Paywave goes thru for $99

  • machej on 09/08/2014 - 19:01

    Do Rams also do this?

  • Abaddon on 09/08/2014 - 21:24

    There is no way to prove that you split the transaction because of the discount. I'm splitting all of my payments into <$100 chunks now they've removed the possibility of signing for transactions. Screw remembering pin numbers. Tell them as much next time.

      • KMeister on 09/08/2014 - 22:20
        +1

        Look, it is wrong for a bank to ring you up and tell you how to spend your money. 100% agree with that.
        They should be dealing with this in a more courteous manner, after all, this promotion is not out of interest of any of us, they just need more customers, hence this promotion.
        However, I believe it's their right to waive the discount, since it's clearly stated in T&Cs that they would do as they wish, if transactions are not to their satisfaction; having said that, they shouldn't call up their customers and babysitting them. This is lack of professionalism on their behalf. Whoever called and initiated these actions on customers in their institution was acting out of frustration, and being vengeful, not a good look for them at all. I'm not referring to the person who called you, it's the senior management at fault here.

        • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:59

          I wonder if there may be some "disharmony" at ING Direct…

          eg, some senior management -wanting- to share some of the $$$ saved, eg, from not having local branches, unlike the competition…

          some (eg, "traditionalists" or even "plants" from other banks?) viewing such rewards as "lost profits"

          If those with the latter view control "enforcement" they could be responsible for all the harshness & stopped accounts.

          We need investigative journalists to find out… or some ING "whistle-blowers" from the inside, to let us all know. ;-)

      • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2014 - 22:38
        +2

        Just remember what is the sole reason this foreign bank exist. It is not to do good to the community. The first and foremost reason they exist is to make as much profit as they possibly can, and whilst they're at it, pay the least amount of taxes possible.

        How is this different to the domestic banks?

        Remember James Hardie?

        You do realise that's an Australian company that relocated offshore?

        • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:51

          How much have James Hardie saved (read: cheated former, injured workers out of, ie, after work with/around hazardous materials was deemed to be the cause of their injuries/illnesses) …by "taking the $$$ & running"?

      • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 10:48

        Maybe someday - when we have enough low-cost Energy, etc. - Corporations will have new Terms & Conditions added to -their- list of accountables, by gov'ts… like be more generous / flexible / humane, etc.

        If you think all countries are so "nice" to corporations (eg, giving then NO reaquirements to leavelasting contributions to countries that they are doing business - as guests - in), consider China:

        • a company that wants to benefit from China's low (no longer lowest, of course) labour-costs MUST hand-over the Intectual Property (IP) in those products to China, ie, so Chinese competitors can make such products & compete with the foreign corporations.

        (A big reason AU has trouble making such demands on its "guest corporations" is due to our high labour-costs… so, goodbye Mitsubishi & (in 2017) GM-Holden.

        Time to create new corporations for ourselves, right? I agree!)

    • Glodys on 10/08/2014 - 00:28
      +10

      Correct me if I'm wrong but what I've read so far is that you think it is wrong that they've called you in such a way because it is your money and that you should be able to use it how you want.

      …it is my money you are talking about here.

      If you think about it, the 5% cashback that you are currently receiving is from their money, so if they are able to use the same argument that you are currently using, then they are able to do what they want. This includes the removal of your cashback if they have reasons to believe you are misusing it.

      • paloverde88 on 10/08/2014 - 21:54
        -5

        "misusing it" is speculative and open to interpretation and totally arguable.

        So for argument sake, you bought $90 worth of items, you paid with paywave $90 that $90 was taken out of your account, then along comes the 5% cashback, $4.50 of your money that was taken from you initially was returned back to you. So you just got your own money back in a round about way.

        It's not as if you just paid $90 on pay wave that money is taken out from your account then ING added another $4.50 to your account because of cashback. No money fell from the sky here, it's just a trick to make you think money somehow magically appeared. It's still your money taken and given back to you, but that does not remove the fact that it was your money to begin with. Not money out of nothing.

        To get the $4.50 you must first pay $90, it's not like you get $4.50 even before you pay for anything, You must pay with your money and then 5% of your money is given back to you. Still your money. That is why 5% cashback is never taxed by ATO because it is not money earned, it is your money taken away for a short period and then put it back where it belong. If anything you lend it to the bank for their use for about 30 hours for free.

        • Glodys on 10/08/2014 - 22:51
          +5

          An important thing that you have forgotten is that the $90 taken out of your account is not given to ING, rather it is given to the company you have paid in exchange for the products that you have received.

          Yes "misusing" is a rather subjective term but if you caught someone abusing an offer that you have made resulting in you losing money, I'm pretty sure you would classify that as misusing too.

          blah blah blah all accusations

          You never stated that these accusations were not correct. If anything, going by the wording of your post, "I asked jb if i could split that into 4 payments so I can get my cash back from ING ", these accusations are on point. Accusing someone of something is not wrong if they have enough evidence.

          May I also ask why you have emphasised "Friday morning" so much. How is getting a call on a Friday morning any different from a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon?

        • Dan_ on 10/08/2014 - 23:09
          +5

          @Glozza210:

          May I also ask why you have emphasised "Friday morning" so much. How is getting a call on a Friday morning any different from a Tuesday morning or a Thursday afternoon?

          He's your typical bank-basher who is massively offended by the fact that the bank has the nerve to intrude on his time by calling him up on a Friday morning rather than going through the effort of working around his personal schedule.

      • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 11:07

        Compared to other banks,

        • that 5% Rewards bonus -really- came from salary / wage / rent / etc. savings - which are like -losses- to the local communities - around AU - who could -otherwise- have grown a little more/faster, ie, if ING was spending more - around AU, each month - to provide branches "out here" in AU…

        We've embraced online business efficiency a bit "at our peril" (NSW grows - & rest of AU loses - a bit, each month.)

    • shadowfax1007 on 10/08/2014 - 18:13
      +8

      Holy heck, get off your high horse.

      You agreed to the T&C's, you have no leg to stand on here. You deliberately split a purchase to gain 5% back. It's not -your- money, it's ING's money. They don't have to offer the 5% rebate.

      in the scheme of things $379 split into 4 portions is not $3790 split into 400 portions.

      So this makes it ok? Your logic is that because it wasn't thousands of dollars being split, its ok. That's like saying let me just put my hand in the till at work and take $20 every shift, but hey its ok, it's not like I'm taking $200 each shift.

      If their approach had been a little more courteous say We would like to confirm if you have lost your card because we notice there was a few duplicate charges, this line of approach would show courtesy, diplomacy and much more professional.

      So what happens when you say "No, my card wasn't stolen" - the only other alternative is that you were screwing them for the 5% rebate

      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.

      THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID! You knew you couldn't get 5% off if the purchase was over $100, so you got the retailer to break it into smaller amounts.

      I'm all for saving money and paying the least amount for a product but the fact of the matter is, you got caught out gaming the system. Stop acting like an entitled prick, accept that you were in the wrong and move on.

      This thread has given me a headache…

  • spriggy on 10/08/2014 - 00:00

    Even if their approach is more courteous, does it mean you will stop doing what you did? Would you rather it came through in an email? Or worse, cancel your account outright?

    The good thing with capitalism is, since its your money you have the right to bank with another bank and show them who is boss.

    Alternatively, do it the way others have suggested earlier so that you won't get caught. Not that I agree, but that's your prerogative.

  • Weezle on 10/08/2014 - 01:09
    +2

    Let me get this straight. You got caught rorting the system, yet refuse to admit you're in the wrong.

    Don't get me wrong, it's great to have the discounts. Just be more discrete about it next time.

    • paloverde88 on 10/08/2014 - 22:06
      -6

      "rorting the system" is a harsh word to use. I do pay all my taxes thank you.
      Unlike those haul into ICAC hearings, now those are rorting the system.

      • malcolmrivera on 11/08/2014 - 20:28
        +4

        You keep comparing this to worse misdeeds. Just because yours is not as bad on a relative scale doesn't mean you weren't rorting the system. You even admit that you only split the payment to get the 5% in your post.

  • fertiliser on 10/08/2014 - 10:24
    +1

    if you don't like the way they treat you, just move banks.

  • wukachuka on 10/08/2014 - 12:32
    +3

    Couldn't the bank just put a 2 minute window on the paywave?
    So splitting a payment would require standing there like a goose for 2 minutes between waves if you were trying to split a purchase.

    /shrug

    • Dan_ on 10/08/2014 - 12:39
      +2

      You're hired.

      … Is what I would say if I worked for ING and had the authority to hire people.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2014 - 18:21

      You should call up ING and tell them this idea. lol

  • highdealer on 10/08/2014 - 12:39

    If you think they are being petty and disgusting, rude and unprofessional then take your money else where.

    You can use other bank that have no monthly fees, use other bank the have a 5% cash back on paywave purchase that wont care if you use it for split payment.

  • cloudy on 10/08/2014 - 12:42
    -2

    I'dlike to see OP take this further and have some authority clarify if this 5% provided only by ing is a eentitlement, or a goodwill offer.

    If it's an entitlement, then OP can split payments 4 times or 400 times and it's ok. But if it's a nice offer by ING, and it's gamed by people, I see no issue in revoking it.

    • fatal on 11/08/2014 - 10:22
      +3

      It's obviously not an entitlement since it is clearly stated in their T&C's that this is a "Promotional Offer" which could be withdrawn at any time.

      • cloudy on 11/08/2014 - 10:27

        if its obviously not an entitlement, then it's obvious ING can withdraw the privilege at their discretion. If its so obvious, i wonder why this topic comes up over and over again, and gathers so much discussion/debate?

        I happen to fully agree that this is not an entitlement. But my opinion and ur opinion is just that it i reckon.

  • demiurge on 10/08/2014 - 13:03
    -4

    As pointed out before, ING is a terrible bank involved in lots of unethical trades. I fully support any to sign up and game the system as much as possible to take money out of their pocket.

    • Baysew on 10/08/2014 - 13:10

      ING is a terrible bank involved in lots of unethical trades

      Can you provide examples ?

      • IVI on 11/08/2014 - 11:16

        Bu me, it's quite enough that they Rang * Insulted CUSTOMERS by Phone.

        An eMail would / should have sufficed, given us more than enough words (more accurately reportable) to discuss, & at less cost to ING Diect.

        I want to know:

        • How much was saved / lost, ie, paying ING staff to ring Customers & freeze/close accounts -vs- allowing folks to win 5% rewards as they were going?

        If a few more kids got new school clothes, better food, etc., I'd say:

        • let Customers reap what they can for 6 months from the 5%
  • mekktor on 10/08/2014 - 13:11

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

    Could you argue that the reason for splitting the payments and using paywave was that a family member was using your card with your permission and they don't know the PIN? Or is this also against the rules?

    • Dan_ on 10/08/2014 - 13:15

      You are in fact giving them a reason to block the card because an unauthorised person is bypassing security measures on the card. If they were authorised, they'd know the PIN.

    • RockyRaccoon on 10/08/2014 - 13:17
      +2

      Oh dear now we have further insanity to add to the OP's post.

      • mekktor on 10/08/2014 - 13:42

        Insanity? I don't use IGN paywave. I especially don't go to these lengths to save 5%. I'm not familiar with the terms and conditions. What I do know is that it's not reasonable to expect that spouses around the country are not using each other's cards, and it's certainly not policed.

        Is your wife allowed to use your card is she uses the PIN? What if she made the same purchase using paywave?

        • RockyRaccoon on 10/08/2014 - 13:44

          The insanity is telling the bank you do this.

          As you said you have no idea what the T&C's are so why give out crap and confuse people plus maybe get them into big trouble.

        • mekktor on 10/08/2014 - 13:50
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon:
          If you didn't notice, I was asking a question. Anyone who goes out and follows advice that takes the form of a question deserves any trouble they get into.

    • Baysew on 10/08/2014 - 18:59
      -1

      Could you argue that the reason for splitting the payments and using paywave was that a family member was using your card with your permission and they don't know the PIN?

      No, that wasn't the case here. The OP has stated already that he deliberately split the transacations, so he could obtain the 5% rebate, contrary to the terms and conditions he agreed to when he opened the account.

      • mekktor on 10/08/2014 - 20:18
        +1

        Yeah I know it's too late for OP now. I was just looking for a way around their claim that the only reason you would split the purchases is to get the 5% discount. It turns out my suggestion was a terrible one as the terms and conditions state

        You must not give your Visa Debit Card or security device to anyone else or
        let them use it

        The whole thing seems arbitrary to me. Isn't the $100 limit for security purposes and nothing to do with whether or not a discount should be applied? Why should a family of two get 5% off groceries, but a family of three shouldn't. If they are worried about people abusing the security aspect of this, then they need to introduce extra measures such as the wait time suggested by wukachuka.

      • paloverde88 on 10/08/2014 - 22:11
        -4

        No the OP has no recollection seeing specific clauses in regards to duplicate purchases of item or items from same retailer consecutively etc etc blah blah blah. Just a self serving statement that if you do not use this in the spirit of the Olympic games then it shall be revoked, like how many people can interpret that in so many ways.

  • mekktor on 10/08/2014 - 13:49

    double post

  • spychiatrist on 10/08/2014 - 21:32
    +1

    I split my payment all the time. No phone calls. But yes, I must admit it's rorting the system. But OzBers do that just the same, case in point: jumping on price errors. You know it's an error yet buy it, and that's ethical?

    • RockyRaccoon on 10/08/2014 - 21:44
      +4

      Like many here including the OP you miss the point.

      He got called out on it, and then complained, then later he tries to ping ING for doing so, by saying they make a lot of money, are big capitalist corporation that pays little tax, and the retailer let him do it, ASIC needs to put them in their place, it's "illegal" and on and on.

      So we speed, some of us get caught, coming here to bitch about the speed limits and how they shouldnt be what they are is BS. Revenue raising etc etc.

      Accept the punishment, which is this case was just a caution by ING. The OP says since they cautioned him but were not "nice", it's wrong.

      They need to grow up.

      Many here are not judging the ethics of what they did, just when they got called, they cant accept it.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2014 - 01:22
      +1

      But OzBers do that just the same, case in point: jumping on price errors.

      Not all of us do :P

  • illumination on 10/08/2014 - 21:55
    +5

    OP, clearly no one here agrees with you and you still think you're right despite everyone telling you're wrong.

    If you're just after some moral support, I think you should probably post somewhere else…

    Businesses are entitled to set the rules that they want, and "intent of the offer" is the key part of the rule that they've set. This is certainly down to interpretation (as this is something that is not black & white), but as everyone above has stated, this is clearly not what the promotion was intended for.

    If you're trying to get other bodies involved, you'd have to be fighting against something unreasonable and you certainly cannot say that this is unreasonable.

    An example of something unreasonable that external bodies have ruled on is the duopoly of Coles/Woolies old 10c/L+ coupons off for petrol.
    Using my argument above, these companies can do what they want, but the ACCC and whichever other bodies were involved were acting in the interests of the smaller independent petrol stations.

    In this case here, we are talking about a bank that (within Australia) is not one of the big 4, who is offering a promotion that is clearly already in favour of consumers. What are you expecting ACCC to do? They are already offering something better than any other bank for the consumer, yet now you are asking for more.

  • johnno07 on 11/08/2014 - 07:05
    +7

    OP - don't be a dick. I have no problem with you splitting your purchases, trying to save a few dollars (I, like many other ING users, have done it before) but don't have a big ol' sook when you get caught. This is clearly not the spirit of the cash back offer and ING pulled you up on it. All you're entitled to is a swift kick in the pants and to be sent on your way.

  • DealzEddy123 on 11/08/2014 - 11:10

    I've received a call for buying x7 $99 David Jones gift cards in separate transactions.

    They gave me a warning but let this one slide.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 11:13
    +6

    Hey paloverde88…

    You tried to cheat and got caught. ING do NOT have to give you your discount for items over $100. You know this because you were deceptive in having the amount split.

    What you did was 'petty and disgusting'. In fact, what you are doing is an offence against Victorian law. It's called 'Obtaining a financial advantage by deception', or fraud. You are deceiving the bank into giving you a financial advantage by splitting the payments. And you can't argue that you didn't deceive them because you admit to going out of your way to have the amount split.

    People like you really get my goat. ING offer an awesome deal and you and the other peanuts on this site who are trying to find a way to rort the deal, try to ruin it for people like me who follow the rules. I've been with ING for two years as a customer. They have been great. Customer service is awesome. No ATM fees. Cash back on paypass. I even have a cheap mortgage with them.

    Suck it up and move on princess. Or better yet, complain to the police. I'm sure they would love to hear from you…

    • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 13:03
      -8

      I think cheat is a very strong word used for people with criminal intent. In the scheme of things, this is very innocuous. A customer trying to get the best deal, permission was sought from merchant who agrees provided photo id taken. Now everyone here thinks that is criminal. Hmmm maybe we should impose death penalty to those found corrupt in ICAC hearings.
      Even commonwealth bank let off their financial advisor staff who commit fraud without police involved. What more do you want from a customer?
      I think it is disgusting that commonwealth bank did not call the police when they knew their financial advisors committed forgery.

      http://www.smh.com.au/national/cba-ignored-evidence-of-100m-…

      http://www.smh.com.au/national/cba-was-aware-of-fraud-allega…

      I don't see you all rallying against CBA criminal conduct.

      • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 13:42
        +7

        I think it is disgusting that commonwealth bank did not call the police when they knew their financial advisors committed forgery.

        You sound like the type who would call the police when McDonald's get their drive through order wrong.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 16:10

          Yeah not quite Dan. McDonalds don't have any dishonest intent when they stuff your order. The OP here went out of his way to commit an offence. And was stupid enough to admit it. He deserves all the crap he is getting here.

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:47
          -4

          now you're being silly, how could a wrong order in a drive thru be compared to a fraud of millions of dollars committed by bank staff and no one reported to the police? So many families broken over those fraud committed so many divorces resulted and even suicide. You cannot even begin to compare that with a drive thru, what a stupid thing to say.

        • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 20:06

          @paloverde88: Just pointing out your poorly worded and often incoherent sentences. You don't "call the police" like you're expecting an officer to come down and march them out of their office. You report them to the fraud investigation arm of the police, which they did.

          Furthermore, these weren't even CBA staff. This was an accountancy firm brokering loans on behalf of clients.

      • one man clan on 11/08/2014 - 16:03
        +3

        You are delusional. CBA has nothing to do with this. You could extrapolate your pointless argument to any organisation to justify anything.

        Ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?

        • paloverde88 on 11/08/2014 - 18:51

          I won't even waste a single byte of data on this.

        • johnno07 on 11/08/2014 - 20:03
          +4

          @paloverde88: You just wasted quite a few.

      • Cluster on 11/08/2014 - 16:06
        +2

        paloverde88, it sounds like your argument against ING in this case is starting to rely on 'but other people do worse things! as justification. That didn't work in kindergarten, and it sure doesn't work now.

        Calling someone a 'criminal' for bending a T&C with ING over the PayWave rebate is more than a little silly.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2014 - 16:07
        +2

        Stop trying to justify your dishonesty by pointing out others flaws. You are just saying that 'these people are scum so I have a right to be scum also'. Doesn't work like that. You're just lumping yourself in the same boat as all the other corrupt fools.

        Try justifying how you are not committing fraud….Very quiet about that point.

  • SydStrand on 11/08/2014 - 17:20
    +4

    Anything I'd care to add has already been covered but god… the OP's persecution complex and bizarre interpretation of law and consumer rights is absolutely magnificent.

  • smpantsonfire on 11/08/2014 - 17:24

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

    This is it. YOu were abusing the system.

    • SydStrand on 11/08/2014 - 17:38
      +1

      No, you see… I'M the good guy here because I could abuse this loophole even worse but choose not to, that's how much of a good guy I am. I even pay my taxes unlike like those gorram banks*. Now tune into Episode 2 'Victimless Crime: Shoplifting and You" where I will then apply my wildly elastic definitions of moral right and wrong to those corporate fat cats who called me up on Friday morning.

  • Ughhh on 11/08/2014 - 18:56
    +4

    Havent seen so much whinging since meeting my 6 yr old cousin.

    Good for you if you managed to get away with it, but to cry and whinge about it when caught, then get pissed off when you get told off….
    Using 'bigger frauds out there' as an excuse is just pathetic. Its like punching someone's face then saying "hey, I only punched your face ok, I didnt punch your neck and kill you so dont abuse me and tell me off. There are serial killers out there thats more important than this gentle punch in the face".

    • Dan_ on 11/08/2014 - 20:11
      +1

      There are serial killers out there thats more important than this gentle punch in the face.

      lol

  • lehboy on 11/08/2014 - 21:43
    +2

    Talk about an extreme case of false sense of entitlement.

  • freemoneyhunter on 11/08/2014 - 21:50
    +2

    Splitting a transaction up to get the 5% bonus is scummy.

  • marketingpolice on 11/08/2014 - 22:23
    +1

    I got a phone call from ING advising that I should not be making more than 1 transaction at the same shop on the same day. They stated that this includes stores like Myer (which is so hard given it is different departments and registers) and supermarkets (sometimes I walk out and forget something so I go back in to buy it). They said irrespective of amount (the case in question involved two transactions at Coles below $99 when added together as I forgot milk), the first transaction under $99 is paywavable. The second transaction at the same shop on the same day, should be inserted and done by PIN irrespective of amount! I thought they were joking but apparently not! That is how ridiculous their system is. Problem is my everyday spending is not what they consider their everyday spending patterns. Anyone else got busted for multiple purchases at department stores even if under $99 when added together?

    • edgar28 on 12/08/2014 - 15:35

      that was the security intended for paywave, to prevent thief multi tap below 100 without pin. So ING is at fault for not implementing that properly for security reason, that's why I never keep the card for 2% discount, knowing the security is not good.

  • equinoxxx on 12/08/2014 - 08:23

    I'm here just to read IVI's comments :)

  • lplau on 12/08/2014 - 09:28
    +1

    Hmmm,
    Well ING didn't word their promotion to prevent it, which allows it to be abused by their members.
    Both parties are in the wrong, you and ING.

    Splitting a transaction to make it below $100, its unethical, however when has ethics stopped a ozbargainer get their bargain?

    By abusing the system, you are risking the system being shut down. There has been stuff like this happening in the US which they removed because of people like you who abuse it.

    Just think of it this way "If there wasn't that 5% discount for under $100 would you have split the transaction?", if you say "yes you would have split it anyways" then it is ethically correct, if you say "nope i would have just put it through" then it is unethical.

    Its people like you who abuse something which then later on it gets taken away and nobody gets to use it.

    • lplau on 12/08/2014 - 10:45

      Forgot to mention, by going to ASIC or Fair trading, you are just risking the promotion to be taken away.

      Its like that saying "biting the hand that feeds you".

  • one man clan on 12/08/2014 - 11:03
    +1

    Here's a quote from their website (about the 2% 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."

    You were on notice.

  • lplau on 12/08/2014 - 12:00

    I don't think they will pick you up if you spend some money at the same store within the same day.
    But if you were the OP who spent "coincidentally" close to $100 at the same store with transactions that went through consecutively within all of 1 minute timeframe, then they will say you were in the wrong.

  • Grandslam on 12/08/2014 - 18:25

    At the end of the day it's a very generous offer from ING and one that's unparalleled in the market. It's quite reasonable for them to put some restrictions around it to stop it being abused……..all that is explained in the terms and conditions. They couldn't afford to offer these products if everyone did what you did. I think you should just accept that that is how the product works. ING had to pay you almost $20 that they shouldn't have had to……not sure why you think you're entitled to do that.

    • Boshait on 13/08/2014 - 14:36

      it's a very generous offer from ING and one that's unparalleled in the market.

      Actually ME Bank has a very similar offer, the only such offer. ING's is no longer "in the market": they cut it to 2%.

  • Maltopia on 12/08/2014 - 23:14

    It is in plain English. Purchase under $100.

    You made a $379 purchase split into four payments. You did not make a single purchase under $100 and thus didn't qualify for any cashback at all really.

    Without the gift vouchers, you could have paid $90ish on your card, and paid the rest in a different manner and gotten 2% back on that $90ish. It isn't much, but it would have gotten under the radar whilst still being against the terms and conditions (as you still did not make a sub $100 purchase, you only made a sub $100 payment).

    Part payment does not equal a purchase.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join