To increase market share in the highly competitive credit card market, banks often run promotions with their service partners, such as offering welcome gifts, spending discounts, bonus points, etc., to attract new customers and promote spending. However, the Consumer Council received numerous complaints about credit card offers, including welcome gifts delayed for more than 6 months; online purchases not entitled to the expected benefits; and consumers being unable to enjoy the expected discounts after spending the required amount due to the limited promotion quota and neither could they terminate the transactions.
The Council urges banks and relevant service partner platforms to ensure sufficient inventory and stable supply of gifts; to arrange adequate manpower support to handle gift dispatch within a reasonable period; and to strengthen customer service and transparency. In case of any problems, they should inform the relevant bank and affected customers immediately with suggested remedial measures to avoid damaging their own business reputation. The Council also reminds consumers that credit card spending is a way of “spending beyond their means” and they should be sensible when faced with various welcome and spending offers from banks and service providers and must not overspend impulsively simply for getting rewards. Consumers should also carefully study the terms and conditions of the offers, including the spending requirements or redemption quotas available for prudent spending.
Case 1: Continuous Change in Collection Dates
Waiting Over 6 Months on Welcome Gifts
The complainant applied for 2 credit cards through Company A's platform. After spending the amount required for the welcome offer, she submitted a reward redemption form in mid-September last year and received a confirmation email stating that gift collection would be arranged within 10 to 15 weeks. The complainant was expected to be notified by the end of December. However, till January this year, the complainant did not receive any notification from Company A, so she proactively enquired about the progress of the gift redemption. Company A confirmed that the application had been successful and promised to notify the complainant before 11 March for gift collection, and later revised it to before 18 March. The complainant opined that gift cards should not be affected by the delay in global logistics, she was concerned and dissatisfied with Company A regarding the repeated change of the collection date. Therefore, she approached the Council for assistance.
Company A replied to the Council, explaining that there was a delay in the redemption arrangement due to the COVID-19 pandemic and staff shortage. The company finally issued the gift collection notices for the 2 applications on 18 and 28 March respectively and apologised to the complainant for the delay.
Case 2: Ambiguous Definition of Online Stores
Purchases Not Entitled to Rebate
The complainant used Bank B's credit card to purchase computers from an online store on 2 occasions. After checking the credit card statements, she found that Bank B had not offered the 6% rebate for online purchases and took follow-up action. Bank B replied that the type of transaction was defined in accordance with the setting of the payment system or the transaction code used by the service providers upon the payment of the bill. As the authorisation code of the payment system in the debit instruction issued by the online store to the Bank indicated that the transaction channel was POS (Point of Sale) but not e-Commerce, thus the complainant was not entitled to the promotion rebate. The complainant opined that purchasing goods from online stores should undoubtedly be categorised as online spending. The complainant did not accept Bank B's explanation and lodged a complaint with the Council.
Bank B affirmed to the Council that the authorisation code was not for e-Commerce. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the 6% rebate. However, a 6% rebate was provided for one of the transactions on a discretionary basis. As for the other transaction, the Bank declined the 6% rebate explaining that the complainant had already received a rebate from another promotional offer with terms and conditions specifying that promotional offers could not be enjoyed simultaneously.
Case 3: Over 3 Months for Welcome Offer Verification
Chargeback Mechanism Lacks Flexibility
The complainant achieved the target spending amount for the credit card co-branded by Company C and a Bank but she still had not received the welcome shopping bonus points after six months. She then enquired with the Bank and Company C respectively and both marked down her credit card number, saying that they would check and revert. In addition, the complainant also used the “$250 off on a $500 purchase” offer exclusively for co-branded cardholders and by entering the discount code on the specified date and time as instructed. Nevertheless, the platform indicated that the quotas of the discount code had all been filled. Although the complainant immediately stopped the operation and exited the application, she still received confirmation of the purchase order with a transaction amount of $503. The complainant contacted Company C and was told that the refund could only be made by means of bonus points. Not accepting the arrangement, the complainant criticised Company C for completing the transaction without her permission and was also dissatisfied that she had not yet received the reply on welcome bonus points. Hence, she lodged a complaint with the Council.
Company C replied that the welcome gift involved various departments of Company C and the Bank, and more time was needed for verification. It took more than 3 months before the bonus points could be credited to the complainant's membership account. Company C admitted that it would learn from the experience and review it with the marketing department to speed up the process and improve the service to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. As for the orders, Company C claimed that its system was working properly, and the terms and conditions stated that once an order had been submitted, it could not be cancelled. However, in addressing the complainant's dissatisfaction, a refund was specially arranged for the payment credit card account. The Council recommends that banks and service providers should be more transparent in limited promotional offers by stating clearly whether the discount code quota can be applied to the transaction before payment so that consumers can make an informed decision. In addition, as the online system may need to cope with a surge in traffic during the promotional offer period, service providers should make every effort to ensure system stability to minimise disputes and safeguard the interest of consumers.
Consumer Tips:
- Consumers should assess their affordability and practical needs when making purchases. They should stay rational and avoid spending impulsively or even overspending due to promotional offers;
- Pay attention to the terms and conditions of the promotional offers, such as the specified spending period, whether pre-registration is required, whether the offer is limited in time or quantity, and whether the spending amount is capped or specific products are excluded, etc. to avoid disappointment if the offer turns out to be unavailable upon purchases;
- Verify monthly statements after spending to confirm whether banks have provided spending-related promotional discounts in accordance with the terms. If consumers have any queries, they should raise them with the banks as soon as possible. If consumers are unsuccessful in negotiating with the banks, they can approach the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or the Council for assistance;
- Be aware that financial product comparison platforms are not banks and are not regulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Gift redemption arrangements may take time, and the verification process may be longer than usual.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/551complaint
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.