whay pay £5 DD charges

[Exorcist74]

Read this in todays Daily Mail dated 16th Jan 2008
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bbphone...in_page_id=182
It say that More than 5million BT customers could reclaim charges imposed because they did not want to pay by Direct debit..

Its there hope yet

[MovedGoalPosts]

The article is referring to BT users, hence moved to other telco Services. Indeed the article suggests BT make a £4.50 quarterly charge. Seems better "value" than some organisations.

The real question is that applies to every organisation that makes these sortss of charges. Is the charge a reasonable fee for the service that covers the additional costs of processing non DD payments, or is it a penalty. As the banks have found, penalty charges get a lot of scrutiny, and probably are not allowed under consumer law.

[Exorcist74]

Originally Posted by Rob

The article is referring to BT users, hence moved to other telco Services. Indeed the article suggests BT make a £4.50 quarterly charge. Seems better "value" than some organisations.

The real question is that applies to every organisation that makes these sortss of charges. Is the charge a reasonable fee for the service that covers the additional costs of processing non DD payments, or is it a penalty. As the banks have found, penalty charges get a lot of scrutiny, and probably are not allowed under consumer law.

The reason I posted on forum is because the original artical in the news paper mention Virgin media as well as Talktalk......, which brings me back to the reasonable charge scenario that is applied to us as well. .... apologies for posting in wrong place..

£4.50 a quarter compared to £20, as you say better "Value"

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.

[MovedGoalPosts]

It's all very well companies asking their customers to pay by DD, but to force such a payment style is wrong. There are numerous examples of payments being incorrectly deducted from numerous suppliers. If people want to retain control of their money, that should be their choice. And yes there is the so called Direct Debit Guarantee, but have you ever tried to enforce it

The major question though is whether the companies using such "fees" are trying it on or not. Depsite when the contract may have been started, most do carry terms that allow variation with notice. Now unless that variation is, in law, unfair to the consumer 9shows bias to the company), if notice is given it's reasonable. From what I can see, given that there has to be some manual billing input for any payment that isn't automated such as Direct Debit, it would be difficult for any customer to prove that BT's £4.50 a quarter is anything more than a service fee, and thus reasonable, equally the onus is probably on BT, who raise the fee, to prove it's reasonable.

If its a service fee then itsn't it up to the company to decide what it wants to charge. The consumer has a choice to not buy from the company. If it was a penalty then I thought it had to be reasonable under contract law.

I've been reading about the bank charge situation on the BBC News site and the last one I read was that the banks are tryign to claim that the fee are service charges and not penalty charges therfore they can charge what they want and arn't tied to the Unfair Terms in consumer contracts

[Exorcist74]

my argument on this DD charges is that when I signed up, it did not state, that, should I not pay by DD, that I as a customer would be charge for the inconvenience of not applying to the service of direct payment, and the penalty for late payment clause came in without a agreement with the customer and the company. If it is a company police ,surely it must be stated in contract for both party's, so that no misunderstanding is made
No contract was signed and no agender was stated in writing that such a charge would be made to my bill when I become a customer.
One more thing I would like to state is if it is a fair charge, why is it so difficult for (them) to provide detail of the break down of the charges.
It would be great to see how the DD system is working, considering all the complaints that have been posted on this forum.
If it works for one person, and causes misery for another, for one reason or another, then thats great for the one that its working for, but not a thought is given for the people that the system don't work for, because I'm all right. Pay the charges Peasant so I can reap the benefits....
This is not a dig at any person, its just a fact

[popper]

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....

But the companies are claiming these are SERVICE charges which would not be covered under the same rules.

I suppose it would be upto a court to decide whether they are service charges or penalties.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Rob

It's all very well companies asking their customers to pay by DD, but to force such a payment style is wrong.

There are numerous examples of payments being incorrectly deducted from numerous suppliers.

If people want to retain control of their money, that should be their choice.

And yes there is the so called Direct Debit Guarantee, but have you ever tried to enforce it

The major question though is whether the companies using such "fees" are trying it on or not.

Depsite when the contract may have been started, most do carry terms that allow variation with notice.

Now unless that variation is, in law, unfair to the consumer (shows bias to the company), if notice is given it's reasonable.

From what I can see, given that there has to be some manual billing input for any payment that isn't automated such as Direct Debit, it would be difficult for any customer to prove that BT's £4.50 a quarter is anything more than a service fee, and thus reasonable, equally the onus is probably on BT, who raise the fee, to prove it's reasonable.

as i said im busy, but 'force such a payment' does seem unlawful ,although i have never looked for the exact law, i think it will be covered by the same rules that say shops etc cant refuse a cash payment even if you pay in pennys as its queens currency.... someone might try and look it up.

as for direct debit, now that IS in UK law and it states ' a direct debit is tantamount to a cash payment '

that being the case, it will be hard for any Uk company to lawfully equate a higher price for cash payments in any UK court.

while the gov bodys that are there to protect the UK consumer, or the consumer themselves dont take these matters to (small claims) court, OC the companys in the UK will always try it on.

after all, they know people are lazy and will not fight for their rights, at least thats what the banks thought at one time...

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Akia

But the companies are claiming these are SERVICE charges which would not be covered under the same rules.

I suppose it would be upto a court to decide whether they are service charges or penalties.

OC they are, they stand to loose a LOT of extra cash flow if they didnt.

look at the case of the banks, they stead fastly refused to ever take it to the courts, until that is, one person took the wrong road and gave the banks a possible out.

its not by any means a clear cut case for the banks to win a ruling, and some have a point that this test case was infact a planted case to favour the banking institutions after all we are talking VAST amounts of cash.

however the banks are a special case, and its not by any means comparable to the likes of VM or BT cash flow, so they(anyone other than the banks infact) have a lot more to loose % wise and far less cash flow to fight a valid consumer or official bodys court case.

well according to this link pennys are only legal tender up to 20p
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/...name_page.html

Originally Posted by popper

.
as for direct debit, now that IS in UK law and it states ' a direct debit is tantamount to a cash payment '

that being the case, it will be hard for any Uk company to lawfully equate a higher price for cash payments in any UK court.

snip.

But if that is the case they are not trying to charge a higher amount for something that is basically a cash payment. They are charging extra for the people that want to pay by cheque or at a paypoint. Are these classed as cash payments as well. and don't forget the if you do pay by paypoint, they will take a cut of the payment

Taken from paypoints website:
What commission do you pay?
PayPoint agents earn variable commission rates from 0.5% to 45% per transaction. We will give you more details with your application

If a customers bill is £100 and paypoint take a cut of 5% then it's quite easy for them to justify the £5 charge. Are you saying that because someone wants to pay by this method the extra cost should be passed on to all of us, Do you think thats fair on the people that do pay by DD.

What about all these companies that give a discount for paying by direct debit. Are you claiming this is illegal as well because it basically amounts to the same thing. Also if this is the case why did Telewest go to the trouble of changing from a discount to a charge a few years ago. All they would need to do is put everyones prices up by £5 and then start offering a £5 discount to the people that pay by DD again.

[keithwalton]

I don't have our last bt bill to hand but i seem to remember the charge being a whole lot more than £4.50

[Mad Mick]

The Virgin £5 is what is keeping me away. I've told 'em I'm not happy with Sky and they could have a new 80-odd quid a month customer but I'm not doing DD's.

Sky takes the money from my credit card. It gives me a bonus and extra protection under the credit card rules and regs.

Someone asked the question "why don't you like DD's?" to another posting. My reason are you are giving a company open access to your money to take what they want. Yes, there is the guarantee, but while you argue your account stays light. Also, the third party has no way of checking you have funds. If for any reason you don't have enough money (i.e. someone else has taken too much!) you cop a whacking charge, and probably from both ends - and it goes on your credit reference file.

Nope - there's only three people can take money out of my account; the bank, the wife, and me .... and I'm not over-chuffed about the first of those!

[WHISTLED]

Also, the third party has no way of checking you have funds

Erm no - That would be your job as the account holder..

[Mad Mick]

Quote "Erm no - That would be your job as the account holder.."

My point exactly. And when I check my account - which incidentally I don't have time to do daily - if there aren't sufficient funds it will take at least three days to get them there.
If I'm the only one that can check the funds are there, I'm the only one who can take money from my account. or put another way - I give my money, no one takes it!
but if you're happy letting people take uncontrolled amounts from your account Whistled - you go for it. I expect you're probably comfortable buying things over the phone and give out your card number and full details including cvv number. When some unscrupulous sort from a call centre is flogging the details in pubs you may see the weakness in our so called secured banking system - and no, the banks won't refund the money if you knowingly gave out your details.

Direct debit is for the convenience of the banks and companies - not the people who's money it is.