20-01-2016 08:26 AM - edited 20-01-2016 08:42 AM
on 20-01-2016 01:27 PM
Quite simply, the very nature of gambling means the money might not be coming back. So if we're to give a customer cash from a credit card, their ability to repay that money is impacted by the fact they gamble it, therefore it's a more risky transaction (lending) for Bankwest. Does that help clarify @cgm?
○ If you find a response helpful remember to give it 'Kudos'.
○ If it answered your question, make it easier for others to find by selecting 'Accept as Solution'.
20-01-2016 03:45 PM - edited 20-01-2016 03:54 PM
I'm more thinking about online purchases, rather than cash withdrawals. E.g. $1.20 Oz Lotto purchase through your Tatts account.
I'm understanding what you're saying @PeteW! But I guess why apply a one size fits all approach on this matter.
Customer's are provided invitations to increase their credit card limit, why shouldn't those customers also have the flexibility and responsbility to make the purchases they want to, without penalty.
How is having a $25,000 credit card limit less risk adverse?
I guess another way to look at it is, how is going out and buying $3000 worth of non-essential goods any different to gambling your money away.
The very fact customers are provided a credit card, shouldn't the responsibility test be tested at the point of applying, not once you have one.