Quote:
Originally Posted by Akia
It reads to me that BT are quite within their rights to charge it.
What appears to be the problem is that people that were with BT before have had a change to the contract and this appears to be why they may be able to claim it back.
And the claim that if not fair on all these people that are poor and don't have a bank account is just rubbish, So what, in this day and age I don't think any one has a excuse not to have one.
Even benifits have to be paid into a bank account or post office account now.
These people need to get themselfs into the 21st century.
Also the excuse that people have tight budgets etc is just another cop out.
The bill still has to be paid regardless so how does this make it harder to budget and the date the direct debit is taken can be changed.
What are all these people going to do if the companies decide that they will only accept customers that pay by direct debit. Sky as far as i know already do this.
I personally agree with the charges if it keeps the price of the services I'm paying cheaper.
Why should I subsidse someone that dosn't want to pay by direct debit because thats what would happen if these charges are scrapped. The cost of the services would be increased to off set the cost.
|
many of these points have been covered by Mr Angry and myself in several places, but ill outline some points again for this thread.
as a matter of princapal, the money amount taken should not matter, however we are talking nearly half the cost of phone line rental, be it BT or VM and thats a massive extra cost in the budget for low income familys etc.
the low income people do have their benefits payed into some form of account today due to the uk Gov mandate.
not all these accounts (the post office for instance)have a direct debit option in any form.
those that do ,will make bank charges if for any reason the DD is asked for before enough funds are in the account, most people know this.....
however there is infact a thing called the
'blue book' that covers all gov payments such as child benefit,and income support etc, into the mandated accounts, in it and in every single
code of practice the banks,BS's etc were told to comply with states they will NOT for any reason take any charges from these moneys as its state aid.
we all know they do infact take money though even with these iron clad
gov rules and
codes of practice signed and in place .....
moveing on to this OP case, there is infact again, iron clad gov rules, and common law, and in UK
consumer law that states it is illegal to
levy penalties on any consumer contract.
now keeping this in mind, have a read of my post here
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/10...l#post34465340
Ofcom to ensure broadband charges are fair
notice they say in their official report "... The report also points out that companies sometimes
levy penalties for payment by means other than direct debit.
...
"
its not a case of weather a person under a consumer contract agrees to any unlawful penalties or an invalid clause, and choses to ignore it and pay anyway....
its about the UK consumer contract law and the official body put in place to protect the consumer, offically reporting its findings, and taking action in the courts if needs be, to have these unlawful actions remedied, and any unlawful payments repayed to the consumer including acrued interest.
not to mention, stopping others from trying to do the same actions in the name of business, just because such and such does it doesnt make it right remember...
Mr A, anyone else care to expand this to help people understand their rights as im busy right now....
