Negligent advertising (probably not bait & switch) at RACQ Dining Rewards with MOS burgers

Related Stores

RACQ

MOS Burger

• 

  Meho2026 on 02/06/2019 - 06:50

  +3

  Ok you need to weigh up the amount of time and energy you will devote to this against the potential financial gain.

  However I do share your sense of injustice and fight against the evil corporate giant

  My advice is to clean up your story and simplify it.
  Not everyone understands how the RACQ credit works.
  Have you got a screenshot of the offer that’s dated in May cos that’s best. That web citation doesn’t display correctly on my phone so I can’t tell if it’s any good.
  Drop that part about being told by email the offer isn’t valid in May. It’s confusing and you’ve not made it clear you were told this after you purchased.
  Use words like the consumer laws and ACCC use. Instead of negligent say misleading and deceptive conduct.

  Your argument needs to be that you only ate at that restaurant because RACQ advertised the discount and now they are refusing to honour it which is illegal under the Competition and Consumer Act (2010)

  Do some digging around online and you will find an email contact for one if this lot
  https://www.racq.com.au/about/racq/group-executive-team

  Good luck and I hope you win your battle on behalf of our whole community and you get your $2.67

  • 

    brisdaz on 02/06/2019 - 07:13

    Ok thanks for the detailed feedback.

    Have you got a screenshot of the offer that’s dated in May cos that’s best. That web citation doesn’t display correctly on my phone so I can’t tell if it’s any good.

    Unfortunately I don't and screenshots can be doctored but webcite is a third party acadameic citation organization with a reputation to uphold.

    Drop that part about being told by email the offer isn’t valid in May. It’s confusing and you’ve not made it clear you were told this after you purchased.

    Yes I was definitely only told this after I emailed to find out why I didn't receive the rebate/credit as the dates suggest.

    Use words like the consumer laws and ACCC use. Instead of negligent say misleading and deceptive conduct.

    I'm loath to use the words misleading and deceptive conduct as that implies maliciious intent. I think it was more a case of they forgot that it was advertised on the main website as it wasn't advertised on the dining rewards restaurant finder.

    Your argument needs to be that you only ate at that restaurant because RACQ advertised the discount and now they are refusing to honour it which is illegal under the Competition and Consumer Act (2010)

    Exactly. This is the crux of the argument.

    • 

      brisdaz on 04/06/2019 - 05:45

      Here's a screenshot - https://photos.app.goo.gl/3ncRZcfjzZ6sVmqq8

• 

  kusama on 02/06/2019 - 07:14

  Just be grateful you have MOS Burger

• 

  whooah1979 on 02/06/2019 - 08:27

  Negligent advertising

  What is negligent advertising?

  • 

    toristo on 02/06/2019 - 09:40

    +2

    Where your advertising doesn't love you and spends money that should be used for your health and education, but instead goes out gambling and drinking…

• 

  LiamF on 02/06/2019 - 10:10

  +1

  You need to relax a bit.

  The terms and conditions for the program are here: https://www.racq.com.au/~/media/pdf/racq%20pdfs/membership/d…

  The relevant sections for you are:

  1a) "By participating in the Program you agree: i) to be bound by these Terms…"
  1d) "You agree that you have not relied on any representation, description, illustration or specification that is not expressly stated in these Terms."

  6.2e) "Subject to clauses 6.2(f) and 6.2(g), you will receive the Cash Reward to which you are entitled within 90 days of the date on which the relevant transaction is settled by your Card Issuer and the Participating Merchant."
  6.2f) "You acknowledge that it is the responsibility of your Card Issuer and the Participating Merchant to settle transactions. Whilst usually this occurs 24–48 hours after the transaction takes place, your Card Issuer or the Participating Merchant may not settle a transaction for up to 90 days."

  So, you're still well within all these time limits as set out in the T&C. RACQ and you are both still within these conditions generally. Calling RACQ outside of business hours and demanding escalation to corporate over a missing $3 refund, then posting here and to Choice is not called for; try calling again in business hours and asking if you can be put through to someone that can help you with this.

  • 

    brisdaz on 03/06/2019 - 10:11

    Thanks for looking into this Liam.

    But I have emailed over several weeks a few times. ACL law trumps terms and conditions I think.

    • 

      brisdaz on 04/06/2019 - 05:40

      To give an example the internet companies mislead consumers about "unlimited" internet which was limited and hidden in the terms and conditions. ACCC went to court over this and successfully won.

• 

  bloom on 02/06/2019 - 10:34

  +1

  Lawyer up!
  Might even be worth a royal commission

  • 

    brisdaz on 04/06/2019 - 05:42

    Ha! I know you're being sarcastic.

    But consider if 1,000 consumers were mislead over this (There's 5 Queensland stores so 200 customers each) then that's $10,000 worth of meals that MOS/RACQ unfairly won.

    Small change in business terms but still something.

    It's too small for a class action.