14 february 2025, 10:32

FOS noting receipt of many appeals against T-Bank’s “20% cashback on payment of housing and utilities services for payment of communication services” campaign

To date, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has received about 200 appeals from the campaign participants who believe their rights have been violated.

The credit organisation had launched a marketing campaign, the participants of which were encouraged to pay for mobile communications with the bank’s card, and then enjoy a 20% cashback on payment for services in the “housing and utilities category” via the bank’s mobile application.

The cashback, however, had not been paid to a number of campaign participants within the established period of time. To justify the refusal to credit the cashback, the bank pointed out that in the cases in question the money for payment of utilities had not been paid in accordance with the terms of the promotion campaign, but, for instance, as an advance payment.

Faced with the bank’s refusal to satisfy the claims for the cashback payment and finding their rights violated, a number of campaign participants appealed to the Financial Ombudsman (the FOS has received about 200 such appeals so far).

Having considered these appeals, the Financial Ombudsman satisfied the claims and recovered the unpaid cashback.

When satisfying the consumers’ claims, the Financial Ombudsman relies upon the contents of the terms and conditions of the loyalty programme and the promotion rules, the provisions of which do not contain a definition for the concept of “housing and utility services category”, as well as an exhaustive list of transactions qualifying as performed within this category. Likewise, the promotion terms and conditions do not define the notion of “advance payment”, which would represent an exception for the accrual of remuneration.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is of the opinion that if there are any exceptions in a promotion campaign involving consumers, they must be explicitly and unambiguously stated in the terms and conditions of the said promotion, so that the consumer, when making a transaction, can reliably determine whether the payment he or she is about to make complies with the terms and conditions of the campaign.

Taking all this into account, the bank’s actions in refusing to credit the cashback cannot be recognised as bona fide.

Olga Kraynova, the head of the Ombudsman for financial services consumers support Service (OFSC), emphasized that by publicising unfair practices of financial institutions “we have been trying to draw attention to the problem and explain to consumers how they can have their rights protected. After all, our main goal is to provide effective, high-quality and timely assistance to consumers of financial services in restoring their violated rights.”

Copy link