In message <55tkg8F26srssU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>
>I'm sorry, but the subtlety of that is lost on me! For a long time BT have
>charged DD payers less than non-DD payers. They will *still* be doing that.
>What's the difference? Does it really matter whether you call it a DD
>discount or a non-DD surcharge - the effect is *exactly* the same.
>
>So, given that this is a long-standing arrangement, why has it suddenly
>become an issue?

This is about how much they are charging as an additional charge to
those who do not pay by DD not about whether it is an additional charge.
For the record I think it clearly is an additional charge because they
quote a sum for the service and charge extra if you choose not to pay by
DD. But that is not the issue.

The point is that to collect the bill by an alternative to DD costs
something in the order of say 50p and B.T. have decided that they will
charge customers an additional £4.50. That means that the sum is not a
reflection of the real cost which means that they are imposing a penalty
charge rather than recouping costs.

B.T. should be made to justify the cost that they are imposing as it is
my understanding that the Law says that the charge should be fair and
reasonable.

In simple terms the charge does not reflect the cost incurred which
means that they are profiteering from the exercise. That means that the
question is do you think that charging £4.50 for a 50p cost is fair and
reasonable?

--
Paul Harris