Misleading? Westpac Altitude Qantas Black Bonus Qantas Points Offer

Lnewtown021 on 16/08/2022 - 12:16
Last edited 16/08/2022 - 12:17

Interested in the opinion of OzBargain users on whether Westpac's advertising of their Altitude Qantas Black offer is misleading.

Westpac has a Comparison Page that compares their credit card products side-by-side. For the Altitude Qantas Black card, it promotes the special offer as follows:
"Up to 120,000 bonus Qantas Points with $6k+ spend on eligible purchases within 120 days of card approval."

However, there are two requirements to achieve the 120,000 bonus Qantas points:

  1. 90k points with $6k+ eligible spend in 120 days; and,
  2. 30k points if the card is kept open >12 months and used in the second year.

While these conditions are not uncommon, the wording "Up to 120,000 bonus Qantas points… within 120 days of card approval" seems clearly incorrect. There is no possible way to earn 120,000 bonus Qantas points in 120 days of approval; the maximum is 90,000 points.

Irrespective of what the terms & conditions say, this sentence itself is surely a false statement. It has been positioned side-by-side against the Altitude Qantas Platinum card's offer which does not have the second year requirement. And also positioned above a big, red 'Apply now' button which links to an application form with no further qualification of the offer.

For someone who is not familiar with these offers, it could be quite easy - and possibly even likely - to be misled by this?

Poll Options

  • 48
    It's misleading.
  • 15
    It's not misleading.
Financial Credit Card

Related Stores

Westpac
Westpac

Comments

  • MS Paint on 16/08/2022 - 12:21

    Black Bonus Matters

  • Ehty on 16/08/2022 - 12:46

    You can earn more Qantas points from spending but they are not considered as bonus!

  • tsunamisurfer on 16/08/2022 - 12:49
    +2

    No matter what, I exit before the one year anniversary, even if I get 75% of the points.

    90k is still a decent deal.

  • vikvance on 16/08/2022 - 13:08
    -5

    It's not misleading.

    The sentence says:
    "140,000 bonus Altitude Rewards Points with $6k+ spend on eligible purchases† within 120 days of card approval"

    The first part of the sentence is: "140,000 bonus Altitude Rewards Points" and then the second part of the sentence starts after the word "with" & gives the condition for getting the bonus points, being: "$6k+ spend on eligible purchases within 120 days of card approval".

  • DingoBilly on 16/08/2022 - 13:39
    +2

    Not misleading because it's pretty clear if you click into it how it works. If you just pick up a credit card based on one sentence of how it works then you're an idiot in the first place.

    Otherwise the "within 120 days of card approval" is tied to the $6k spend, not to the 140,000 bonus points so that's fine, and as soon as you click for more info it's more specifically spelt out. Not hard to find at all.

  • seanfoite on 16/08/2022 - 14:25
    +1

    I read that to be that the spend is required within 120 days, but not that the points will be given to you in 120 days. So not misleading from my perspective.

  • Donaldhump on 16/08/2022 - 15:09

    is misleading (more likely an error not intentional) initially, but corrects itself later on with the correct information.

    • newtown021 on 16/08/2022 - 16:24

      In my case, I was planning to sign up for the Altitude Qantas Platinum card, read through the product page for that product including the T&C's, and on that page there was a link to this comparison page. As a final check, I went to the comparison page; it was that wording of the offer that led me to click directly on the 'Apply Now' button of the Black card from the comparison page. I know it is fully on me for not reading the T&C's of the Black card. However, I still feel the sentence is a false statement. And I am not sure Westpac should be using a sentence like that in its marketing. For people not familiar with these cards, it's not inherently obvious that there would be two requirements to receive the 120k points.

      • Donaldhump on 16/08/2022 - 17:28

        it is a false statement (in error maybe) corrected by the terms and conditions.
        you would not have been induced to sign the contract by the errored statement as the t&c corrected it which have been read (whether you do or not) and would have prevented this inducement and by reading the t&c's its an obvious error if anything.

        not a lawyer but there is a term called "parol evidence" which is essentially the above (maybe?) or for misrepresentation it didn't induce you to sign the contract.

        similar if you negotiated verbally to buy a property for $800k but the contract had a figure of $850k and you signed it, parol evidence applies

        don't disagree it is shit wording from them

        no different to home insurance

        "we cover fire, storm, flood etc."

        last page

        "we dont cover floods when it is caused by water, we dont cover fire when cause by fire"

  • newtown021 on 16/08/2022 - 16:36
    +1

    The responses that I received from Westpac when I queried this wording:
    - Two Westpac call centre agents couldn't verify what offer applied to my credit card.
    - One ultimately told me the current offer from 1st July, rather than the offer that applied at the time my card was approved in June.
    - The Westpac call centre agent, plus a Manager in the call centre that one escalated the query to, both agreed that the wording was incorrect.
    - They sent me to Westpac Rewards (separate call centre) where the agent and their supervisor also agreed that the wording was incorrect but did not know who to contact within the bank. They called back several days later and told me to raise a complaint.

    Westpac's Customer Complaints team responded (Theresa Heilman):
    - Told me there was no offer when I applied and I would not receive any points. (Incorrect) And as such they could not substantiate my claim.
    - I sent her a copy of the webpage from the Internet Archive with the offer for the period that I applied. She ultimately confirmed I would receive the 90k points after 12 weeks. 12 weeks was the time period for the 30k points not the 90k points.
    - She also described the bonus as "$120,000" - which admittedly would be better than 120,000 points.
    - Every part of the response was riddled with errors, from facts to spelling.
    - But apparently they "stand firmly" by their website.

  • ryf on 16/08/2022 - 17:05
    +1

    I'll have to look back at the last time I signed up to a similar offer with the same terms, I swear they just have me the total amount of points (the 120k points) once I reached min spend without having to renew for a second year… will try to confirm!

  • Drakesy on 16/08/2022 - 17:15

    This seems to be the normal these days
    Same with virgins up to 100k points which is split into 4 x 25,000 monthly blocks

    I think the wording is fine
    Dodgy yes, but you just need to read the details and its all laid out there

  • LemonShapedRock on 16/08/2022 - 22:51

    I imagine most people closing their credit cards cite the main reason as the annual fee.

    The "up to" is more common now to incentivise that person to stay another year as he bonus should counteract the annual fee.

  • rooster on 19/08/2022 - 12:14
    +1

    I've had mine for 3 months, and still haven't received my points

  • Honeypot1963 on 15/04/2023 - 17:48
    -1

    Has anyone used Westpac Altitude Platinum Qantas Credit Card to pay ATO through BPAY via BEEM? Did it count towards the $4k minimum spend for the bonus points? It says in the terms and conditions it doesn’t include BPAY but I’ve done this on other cards and it shows up as “Beem it spend” on the account. So does the bank even know what the Beem it transaction was for?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join