Late Payment Charge

[MovedGoalPosts]

Ultimately it will only be proven through leagal action by somebody, or perhaps the OFT or similar. All the average punter, who does not want to take legal action can do , is to try and argue the cost in writing to the billing address. Withholding payment might seem like a good idea, but based on ntl's past performance would just see you cut off with the debt collectors sent in

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Rob C

I've highlighted the two important bits of that.

firstly the reasonable fee - yes it has to be reasonable, something that ntl can demonstrate represents is the cost they suffer for having to deal with an unpaid account. Given they can charge interest as well, this "fee" is the manpower / administration cost ntl suffer. As many post have highlighted, it's the cost, not a profit making scheme. That's where many banks have come unstuck.

Aside from the fact that any Late Payment fee or Penalty fee which does not represent the actual liquidated loss is illegal a defendant who was tasked with proving the "reasonableness" of a fee that went from £0.00 to £10.00 would, I'd imagine, provide a good afternoon's entertainment in court.

Add to that the fact that the OFT opinion in April resulted in a marked decrease in bank fees I wouldn't want to be the NTL counsel facing questions regarding the introduction of a previously non existant penalty fee in June.

Originally Posted by Rob C

The Direct Debit extra charge I'd suspect is less clear cut in what can b3e applied. NTL have been clever using that word discount (not sure if they have repeated that word or expressed it differently in the schedule of charges). If it is truly a discount then they might well get round the legislation, but if it is a charge for paying by not DD methods, then they ruls as above, demonstrating it's a real cost, would apply. Now given that DD systems can largely be automated, but other payment methods might require manual input, the true scale of that £4.00 charge might be harder to dispute.

In reality it's not that hard to dispute. A claimant would only have to ask them to prove / show which element of their non DD payment processes increased by 100%. Did, for example, any NTL employee wages rise 100% at June 1st? No. So their administrative costs from a manpower resource perspective certainly don't warrant it.

The devil is in the detail.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Fair enough on your first points

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

In reality it's not that hard to dispute. A claimant would only have to ask them to prove / show which element of their non DD payment processes increased by 100%. Did, for example, any NTL employee wages rise 100% at June 1st? No. So their administrative costs from a manpower resource perspective certainly don't warrant it.

The devil is in the detail.

The only area here that that ignores is the word "discount" ntl have used. How do we know, ass the customer, what the full price of processing payments actually is? However I find it difficult to beleive that ntl were, up until recently taking a £2.00 loss on every non DD customer, that surely would have been unsustainable?

Whilst the £10.00 late payment fee sounds high, na dthe £4.00 non DD does too, if you set the DD one off against the late one, for the extra processing involvedment, it makes the DD one look cheap

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Rob C

Fair enough on your first points


The only area here that that ignores is the word "discount" ntl have used. How do we know, ass the customer, what the full price of processing payments actually is? However I find it difficult to beleive that ntl were, up until recently taking a £2.00 loss on every non DD customer, that surely would have been unsustainable?

Hi Rob,

Regarding the matter of "any discount...." I think, since there is no mention of a specific discount being afforded to customers for paying by DD in the T&Cs, that it's safe to assume that they are referring to discounts for services that customers may have negotiated. Either that or NTL are trying to suggest that by paying by DD they are, in effect, affording you a discount of £4.00 - and that simply isn't true as the £4.00 is allegedly the cost of processing payments - not for services which they provide under the contract. NTL's customers are not responsible for their business overheads. In the real world businesses factor for overheads by offsetting operational profits against operational costs.

Either way, discounts negotiated or agreed between ntl & a customer are outside the remit of the original contract / T&Cs subscribed to. As such any threat of a withdrawl of same would constitute an unfair term.

Originally Posted by Rob C

Whilst the £10.00 late payment fee sounds high, na dthe £4.00 non DD does too, if you set the DD one off against the late one, for the extra processing involvedment, it makes the DD one look cheap

Yes, but it dosn't make the £10.00 charge any more legal - nor does it explain a 100% increase in the cost of processing non DD payments.

People have to be quick off the mark when NTL increase the charges like this, aside from challenging the charge there is nothing to stop customers who have had their services less than 12 months contacting retentions with view to activating the get out clause, all they need do is give 30 days notice, facing the prospect of losing more customers are NTL still going to dig their heels in for £4 or £10? I think not given the recent publicity on these forums about discounts.