Well at least there’s no 
or 
I guess.
3 Likes
you’ve been paid ! don’t spend it all at once !
Good to aeee from chase.
I did neglect to mention Chase’s Round up account, and I normally wouldn’t bother with round-ups, but it’s a nice way to earn 5% on at least some of your money (although only very small amounts)!
I earned 30p interest this month, 26p last.
Current balance £97
What’s to stop one topping up a savings account via debit card with whatever the minimum amount is +1p repeatedly?
I think I read somewhere that people have tried that and been “warned” by Chase that they would close their account if they continued, due to abuse of the product.
3 Likes
Yup. Chase threatened account closure to the poster. A while back now.
3 Likes
And rightly so, methinks.
5 Likes
I wonder where they draw the line with this though. Would a £1.01 daily automated Amazon top up be acceptable?
How about paying for every item in a big shop one by one?
I imagine that both those examples would be considered unacceptable!
They’ll draw the line at whatever they consider to not be normal usage.
5 Likes
Yeah I wasn’t a fan when I heard that - it’s not like they don’t pick up some revenue from the interchange.
3 Likes
I’ve never liked the term ‘normal use’ when it is left undefined in that fashion. What about using small purchases like bags and what not to ensure there is a small amount of pence wherever I can? Is that too abuse of a facility?
I get that nobody has a right to products offered by a bank and that banks thus do not have to offer services to customers, but companies shouldn’t leave a facility available open ended if they don’t expect customers to take maximal advantage.
If Chase want to limit it, then they should just add a hard limit of 99p or whatever per day and then customers know where they stand.
2 Likes
Maybe they will take a more formal view when they’ve a reason to. Probably hoping customers will be sensible about the offer.
3 Likes
They didn’t. It says “normal spending” or something along those lines in the T&C
1 Like
I take your point, although I also accept that it’s extremely difficult to spell out every single eventuality in product terms, especially for things which should be “common sense” and would make that unnecessary.
Chase have been better than most - publishing a detailed list of 1% cashback exemptions, for example, so it’s a bit unfair to really take them to task over this.
If someone buys a few 5p or 10p bags now and again, that is normal use as it is a real transaction (presumably mixed in with other general spending, like groceries bought at the same shop). Where it crosses the line is when you get into “manufactured” spend, like splitting up what would normally be a single transaction or topping-up savings accounts with odd amounts; it’s pretty clear in those instances (or at least the suspicion is) that the transaction has only been conducted in that way in an attempt to “game the system” and get extra cashback. If somebody does that once or twice, Chase probably won’t mind - but if they do it many times and also have no interest in using their account for “genuine” normal spending, Chase probably won’t want them as a customer.
4 Likes
This reminds me of the early days with Curve. Their definition of cash recycling was very loose. Then they became the goto way to pay HMRC free of charge, but they ended up banning customers (me included!) who used them just for that. Clear definitions are in everyone’s interest.
4 Likes
Sensible for whom though, that’s the problem.
The offer is meant to generate loyalty and create a motivation for using their debit card. If there are ways they don’t want customers to use the offer, they should exclude them verbosely and/or programmatically exclude them (i.e. exclude the same set of MCCs from being eligible for round up to reduce abuse).
Simply expecting customers to passively appreciate a facility but not actually change their behaviour is naïve.
That’s not manufactured spend though. So long as you are spending money on a legitimate product or service (i.e. not simply moving cash between accounts directly/indirectly) which you are genuinely purchasing you are not manufacturing spend, you are simply spending.
Buying a telly to trigger a credit card ‘spend x for y reward’ offer is not manufactured spend.
Buying a telly with you have no intention of taking out of it’s box so you can return it after the bonus is paid is manufactured spend.
Topping up your energy account is not manufactured spend.
Crediting your energy account with the intention of immediately requesting your account balance is refunded to your account is manufactured spend.
Buying a (normal, store specific, non-refundable) gift card is not manufactured spend.
Buying a prepaid Visa/Mastercard gift card which you intend to use yourself in some way that will result in the cash value being returned to you is manufactured spend.
I doubt Chase Bank is naïve. Their offer is attractive and has likely drawn a good loyal response.
They’ll know the gaming potential of the feature and will watch over it. Ultimately their success will come from a core of “normal” users.
It’s hardly surprising if they decide down the road to sanction those trying it on. The right way to deal with that is with a fair usage term, so that the rest of us don’t get disadvantaged with the feature being stifled or limits placed on it.
I don’t see the big deal. It’s hair-splitting at best.
2 Likes