MSE News: Aqua axes 3% cashback credit card – should you ditch and switch?

Jemma-T

Contacted Aqua today (since they never bother to contact me).

Was told "No news is good news" ie my account had moved over to the new version.

Worth sticking around for me for the lack of fees for foreign transaction conversion.

scoly

Jemma-T wrote: »

Contacted Aqua today (since they never bother to contact me).

Was told "No news is good news" ie my account had moved over to the new version.

Worth sticking around for me for the lack of fees for foreign transaction conversion.

On the basis of "No news is good news", surely if you have had no notice to the contrary, your account should still be open and earning you 3% cashback?

I wouldn't settle for anything less

lisyloo

surely if you have had no notice to the contrary, your account should still be open and earning you 3% cashback?

Not true. There is something called "presumption of service" where a caompnay that's sent letters is entitled to assume they have arrived.
Plenty of legal precedent for this including notices of prosecution.

I wouldn't settle for anything less

You'd lose.

[Deleted User]

lisyloo wrote: »

Not true. There is something called "presumption of service" where a caompnay that's sent letters is entitled to assume they have arrived.
Plenty of legal precedent for this including notices of prosecution.



You'd lose.

Well I'd presume it's not been sent.

I mean there was a letter, a text (even on a landline) and an email to those that were affected.

Bit of a coincidence that none of those 3 arrived, eh?

On the balance of probablity, I'd say you were in for a good chance of winning

lisyloo

Well I'd presume it's not been sent.

You can presume what you want.
What I am telling you are legal facts if someone decides to dispute it.

I mean there was a letter, a text (even on a landline) and an email to those that were affected.
Bit of a coincidence that none of those 3 arrived, eh?

Yes it is unbelievable.
How do we know it's even true?
I'm not calling you a liar, merely pointing out that judges do have to decide who's telling the truth.

On the balance of probablity, I'd say you were in for a good chance of winning

Well I disagree.
On the balance of probability if man y thousands or tens of thousands of customers were informed and Aqua can provide proof of who they informed i.e. lists, then I think a judge would rule that a letter was probably sent on the balance of probably.
I don't think the Ombudsman or a civil court would force a provider to provide an obsolete product because one or two letters went missing.

If you could prove it was hundreds then of course that would be different.

For the record I believe that "presumption of service" is an unfair law.
For example if you don't respond to a notice of prosection from the police then you are presumed guilty of not naming the driver.
This is totally wrong and unfair IMO.

So please don't assume that becasue I'm conveying the law that I agree with it, because I don't.

[Deleted User]

Perhaps Jemma-T should just spend, spend, spend?

Afterall if lisyloo is correct in her presumptions, then there wouldn't appear to be any valid consumer credit agreement in place for such additional lending. :cool:

I wonder what our resident barack lawyer has to say about that, eh?

lisyloo

I wonder what our resident barack lawyer has to say about that, eh?

A little silly to resort to name calling and doesn't do your credibility much good to be honest.
If you have serious points to debate why not make them?

Are you disputing that "presumption of service" is a solid legal precedent.
Or do we merely have a difference of opinion on how a judge would deal with one missing letter out of thousands?
The latter is absolutely find but what you or I think won't affect the outcome.

[Deleted User]

With someone with your legal prowess, I'm surprised you are having difficulty understanding my previous post.

Seems extremely clear to me.

lisyloo

Sorry, I don't understand your logic in post #171 so I can't answer your question but basically NO, I would not advise Jemma to spend, spend, spend or to expect Aqua to continue 3% cashback.

Herbalus

darkfield wrote: »

With someone with your legal prowess, I'm surprised you are having difficulty understanding my previous post.

Seems extremely clear to me.

I also don't understand your post if I'm honest. Are you implying that the lack of Jemma-T's agreement because she didn't sign the new application form mean that she is under license to spend loads of money and not repay because there is no agreement?

If that's what you mean, I think it's foolhardy and you'd end up in court.

If that isn't what you mean, please clarify which of Lisyloo's presumptions you are taking to mean there is no credit agreement.