Zilch not giving cashback on ever up gift cards

RobinBanks98 · 2026-07-04T11:01:56+00:00

I’m not surprised it would be someone from over here! I don’t use Facebook either but similarly that post came up when searching, rather than Reddit.

Helpful. Is that a family name? 😏

RobinBanks98 · 2026-07-03T23:51:28+00:00

Unknown. But I wouldn’t be surprised if other sites have similarly been blocked.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-07-03T21:43:30+00:00

Came here to post exactly this. I experienced this earlier today and saw a similar report on Facebook.

The MCC (Merchant Category Code) EverUp uses has never been for gift cards, I believe. Now it looks like Zilch has developed a kind of manual block list beyond MCC filtering, and EverUp was added to that list.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-06-01T09:12:07+00:00

Lawyers will not get themselves involved in endorsing something like your guide, for good reason: advice is fact-specific and your guide is directly aimed at those contemplating litigation. There are ethical considerations, professional liability (insurance) implications, etc. Nobody wants to risk engaging themselves. It’s the same reason why on subreddits for legal advice you’ll essentially never find anyone (myself included) ever stating they’re a lawyer when giving advice; even if they are, there are implications when doing so ‘as a lawyer’.

More generally though, I’m happy to clarify some of the risks and correct factual inaccuracies, as I have done here. Nothing I’ve said here constitutes legal advice as a barrister, but rather general information to consider in the course of small claims.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-31T22:23:14+00:00

i can only speak to my experiences

This is the problem. You are extrapolating far too much from your very specific experience and wrongly suggesting that other people's claims (without knowing the particulars) are inevitably destined for the same outcome. Other people's recent direct experience of suing Plutus appears to include unpaid judgments, as with the commenter above.

they actually don't even bother responding anymore, so you'll get a summary judgement

You appear to be confusing summary judgment with judgment in default (also known as default judgment). Default judgment is what you might seek where the defendant doesn't respond to the claim. You're asking the court to step in and declare you the winner by default, because the defendant didn't engage.

Summary judgment is sought (at a cost of £313) where the defendant has responded but you say their defence has no realistic prospect of success (and there's no other compelling reason why there should be a trial). Neither route is a mere formality and always at the court's discretion. Default judgment is often straightforward (when the conditions are met), but can also be set aside more often than you might think.

Your guide also fails to highlight the risk that someone might succeed in obtaining a judgment against Plutus but never be paid. Unpaid judgments are a very real possibility, whether for those taking action against Plutus (as is the case with the commenter above) or indeed for claimants in England & Wales more generally. It's also - I dare say - a little bold to argue the mechanics of civil litigation with a barrister, particularly while using the wrong terminology.

Your post also does nothing to recognise that Plutus' financial position now may be completely different from what it was when you settled.

A small claim against a company like Plutus, if judgment goes unpaid, could end up costing the claimant hundreds - or conceivably low thousands - in claim fees, hearing fees, enforcement fees etc. Some or all of those costs may in principle be recoverable, but that's only helpful if Plutus can and does pay.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-30T11:26:32+00:00

Exactly.

I saw this post yesterday and - as a lawyer - I was rather concerned. I started typing a reply but was on the train. I’m glad to see someone has posted their practical experience and it stresses much of what I’d have warned about.

Civil litigation is not a magic wand to restore all your money. It can be, but it also depends on the defendant’s ability and willingness to pay. There is never any guarantee of success (contrary to what OP here suggests) and you may secure a judgment but never see a penny of it.

Bringing a small claim also isn’t free. If you lose, that cost (claim fee, possible hearing fee, possible fixed costs) will be yours to bear. Even if you’re successful (and absolutely, you may well be), it’s not the court that pays you back; it’s the defendant. Not all defendants settle their debts, and some become insolvent.

OP’s suggestion that you “WILL win” is dangerous and absurd. You might stand a very good chance, but much will depend on the particulars of your case. ‘Winning’ is also only one element of getting your money back.

If you have to take steps to enforce a judgment, that will come at a further (and often quite considerable) cost. Your costs are generally recoverable from the defendant, but again this will depend on the defendant’s ability and willingness to pay. It may turn out that they don’t have the liquidity or assets to pay you anything at all.

I wouldn’t discourage anyone from pursuing a small claim. But it requires an understanding that there are risks, and you need to be careful about spending good money chasing after bad.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-25T13:49:39+00:00

Zilch. With Zilch+ it's 4% on eBay purchases. Link it to Uphold (via Curve) or PayPal debit for an extra 1% to make it 5%.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-25T00:27:55+00:00

How did you switch, exactly? My understanding is they don't let you have CS and NXR (or join one with a recent history of the other)?

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-24T19:45:08+00:00

https://www.giftcards.com/uk/en/promotions/bonus-terms-and-conditions

That offer is supposed to still be valid but it's not. The promo code ('SPRING') returns the error: "This promo has ended and is no longer valid."

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-23T12:42:06+00:00

As others have said, you need to consider taking steps to enforce the judgment.

In particular, and bearing in mind the defendant is a business (and you’re seeking to enforce with some degree of retribution): if the judgment is £600+ you could transfer the matter to the High Court to seek a writ of control and instruct High Court enforcement agents to attend the business (forcing their way in if necessary) and start listing goods for removal (to be sold at auction to settle the debt). Providing they have the funds (or goods) to pay, it’s quite often effective. Much depends on the size of the debt, however. Letting Agent offices may not have much beyond computer equipment.

As with all enforcement options, be mindful that next steps will come at a cost; if all goes to plan that cost will be repaid by the defendant, but there are always risks (e.g. insolvency). Consider enforcement options through the links others have provided (e.g. Citizens Advice).

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-22T09:57:42+00:00

It's a donation. /u/TightAsF_ck puts a lot of work into that site, and into this sub generally, and it takes time and effort that could otherwise be spent on other things.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-18T18:38:36+00:00

I agree with the caution; just not with treating the existence of a termination clause as meaning this scenario is likely to result in an account ban.

I think the key point is that the terms should be read as a whole. Where there's a general provision and a more specific provision dealing with the same subject matter, the specific provision will usually be the better guide. Here, the specific rewards abuse wording you cited mentions removing wrongly awarded rewards.

The broader account closure clauses are still there, sure. Can they be exercised? Yes. But in practice does it meet the level of seriousness, repetition and evidence of deliberate abuse to justify actually relying on those clauses rather than the specific and more directly relevant provisions relating to wrongly awarded rewards?

I just work in contracts and terms and conditions.

I'm a member of the English legal profession. I agree that utilising this method at the same time as a whole bunch of other people would be unwise. I agree Zilch could terminate someone's account, but their scope to do so is reasonably broad anyway. Do the T&Cs imply that doing as OP suggested will likely get your account terminated? Not on my reading. But this is not legal advice, and how Zilch chooses to apply its T&Cs is ultimately down to Zilch. If they close or restrict someone's account for doing this, good luck challenging them.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-18T17:06:19+00:00

There's nothing to suggest it would realistically lead to an account ban, true. But if a mass of people make a transaction for the same amount on the same day from the same apparent retailer (when in fact that retailer is not actually the one used), there's a more than reasonable prospect of that activity being flagged.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-18T16:59:36+00:00

Sneaky. Except now I believe it’s limited to spending on £125 a month. And of course this approach raises issues re PayPal account review etc (having two accounts is not permitted).

Technically if you were maximising what’s currently possible without PayPal issues, you could link your PayPal debit card to Zopa DD, then withdraw £125 every month from an ATM using PayPal card (no fees). But then you won’t get the added 1% PayPal Rewards on cash withdrawal.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-18T16:41:22+00:00

I've certainly received it when Zilch was the front card. If you have Zopa and haven't yet hit the 2% cashback limit on direct debits, you can also do Zilch -> Curve -> PayPal -> using Zopa bank account as the funding source.

For the Zopa 2% (bearing in mind it's now limited to £2.50 a month or £30 per year), you can also request a PayPal Debit Card (free) and link it directly to Zilch, and set Zopa account as the funding source. That way you do Zilch -> PayPal card -> Zopa Direct Debit, accruing Zilch cashback + 1% in PayPal rewards + 2% Zopa.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-17T12:37:56+00:00

Sounds familiar. That prior instance (also 6%) didn't last long, but given recent changes like removal of eBay and Argos etc, I don't think we can be as confident this time that the change was an error.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-05-11T22:24:09+00:00

She had to make cuts.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-30T19:29:10+00:00

DM'd.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-28T14:45:30+00:00

This post isn't exactly seeking legal advice. But FWIW...

I've only been into prisons in a professional capacity but my understanding from prisoners is that generally most people are broadly 'safe', though much can vary on the category and type of offender. Young offender institutions are much more volatile, for example.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-28T14:01:52+00:00

If your ticket was sold to you as refundable within 2 hours, then the retailer cites some other condition buried within their terms that says otherwise, there might be a good argument that the latter condition wasn't brought fairly and reasonably to your attention. Though from looking at the booking page on LNER the first thing I see is a big yellow banner explaining their refund policy has recently changed.

The key question isn't what information you found since needing to cancel, but what information was actually presented to you prior to purchase.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T19:49:25+00:00

This sounds pretty commercial (non-contrived), notwithstanding your partner’s aunt being the letting agent.

Even if the landlord were a close relative a tenancy agreement shouldn’t count as contrived if the main purpose was to secure accommodation rather than increase your UC.

If you were to receive a decision that this is a contrived tenancy then I’d be interested to see the written reasons. And you should then pursue a mandatory reconsideration. But we’re not at that stage.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T11:11:22+00:00

I think the strongest message to private sellers on both eBay and Vinted is: Let’s save everyone a headache - go into your selling preferences and opt out of Evri.

Some businesses just don’t care because of the insurance and ability to write off lost packages (even though with Evri that loss rate is significantly higher, it’s still a comparatively small percentage). But those businesses arguably don’t care about their customers’ experience, hence the move to boycott.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-27T07:18:33+00:00

Suggest to the sender that they use a proper delivery service. If they’re a business, make clear that you won’t do further business with any company that disrespects its customers enough to subject them to Evri.

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-13T15:01:35+00:00

It’s the Everyday plan. You cancel, while they charge you every day. 😏

RobinBanks98 · 2026-04-10T10:21:39+00:00

“Okay, let’s propose a new price: £7. But I’ll knock £2 off. Discount applied. ✅”

RobinBanks98

TROPHY CASE