Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
> Whilst the effect is the same as this is an additional charge it
> isn't a discount for those who pay by DD and there is a difference as
> it then becomes a penalty charge. There were similar situations with
> the Banks and Credit Card companies profiteering from imposing
> penalty charges

It is not reasonable to compare this with penalty charges imposed by banks.

These bank charges are imposed because you have failed to comply with the
terms and conditions with which you have previously agreed - such as
exceeding your overdraft limit or failing to pay your credit card bill on
time. In a lot of cases, your failure could be purely accidental.

In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one price if you pay by DD, a
higher price if you don't. You choose. It's not something imposed after the
event because you failed to comply with T&Cs.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> In message <55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If one pays quarterly the additional charge is £4.50 which does not
>>> relate to the cost of processing the transaction and must therefore
>>> be a penalty charge. How else would you describe it?
>>
>> I would describe it as a marketing decision by BT.
>>
> I would agree.
>
>> They clearly *want* people to pay by DD because:
>> * it assures them of their revenue
>> * it avoids having to chase bad debts
>> * it ensures that payments are automatically matched to accounts,
>> with no manual intervention
>> * it reduces churn (inertia makes it less likely that customers will
>> change suppliers)
>>
> All agreed.
>
>> All of these things have a *value* to BT over and above the simple
>> cost of transaction processing. BT have taken the marketing decision
>> that they want the overwhelming majority of their customers to pay
>> by DD and are prepared to give a discount of £1.50 per month as an
>> incentive to encourage this.
>
> No if it was a discount then we wouldn't be discussing this, the
> charge for the service is the same to all and those who choose not to
> pay by DD are charged extra. I know it is old ground but please
> don't keep suggesting that there is a discount because even BT admit
> that it isn't.
>>
>> They have presumably concluded that anything less wouldn't encourage
>> a *sufficient* number of people to opt for DD.
>>
> Probably and I would assume they worked out what the maximum that they
> thought they could get away with was.
>
>> In my view, this is a perfectly reasonable business decision - and it
>> matters not one jot how the size of the incentive relates to the
>> marginal cost of transaction processing. Customers still have a
>> choice if they *really* don't want to use DD.
>>
> So if they decided next week that they would charge ten pounds for
> those who pay by DD and fourteen pounds fifty for those who pay cash
> you would be happy.
>
>> Unlike you, I don't see a distinction between the way in which the
>> service itself is priced and the method of collection is priced.
>> They are both an integral part of BT's business model.
>>
> They are entitled to charge what they believe they can get away with
> for the service that they provide but IMO should not be charging a
> premium rate for collection of the money as it isn't part of the
> service that they provide. I have no argument about them passing on
> the costs of collection but I do object to them charging extra to
> make an additional profit.



--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vnalF26vhotU1@mid.individual.net

[snip]

> In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one price
> if you pay by DD, a higher price if you don't. You
> choose.

You may not be able to choose.

> It's not something imposed after the event
> because you failed to comply with T&Cs.

It's still unfair. Many people have a genuine reason for not wanting to
pay by DD. Some people (Shock..! Horror..!) don't even have a bank
account, so *can't* pay by DD. Why should someone be forced to pay extra
because they choose not to open a bank account..? You will never convince
me it costs more to pay by cash at the post office, the end result is the
same, they get their money on time.

Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Sorry about the previous (non) post - pressed the wrong button!


> In message <55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If one pays quarterly the additional charge is £4.50 which does not
>>> relate to the cost of processing the transaction and must therefore
>>> be a penalty charge. How else would you describe it?
>>
>> I would describe it as a marketing decision by BT.
>>
> I would agree.
>
That's not what you said earlier!

>> They clearly *want* people to pay by DD because:
>> * it assures them of their revenue
>> * it avoids having to chase bad debts
>> * it ensures that payments are automatically matched to accounts,
>> with no manual intervention
>> * it reduces churn (inertia makes it less likely that customers will
>> change suppliers)
>>
> All agreed.
>
Good!

>> All of these things have a *value* to BT over and above the simple
>> cost of transaction processing. BT have taken the marketing decision
>> that they want the overwhelming majority of their customers to pay
>> by DD and are prepared to give a discount of £1.50 per month as an
>> incentive to encourage this.
>
> No if it was a discount then we wouldn't be discussing this, the
> charge for the service is the same to all and those who choose not to
> pay by DD are charged extra. I know it is old ground but please
> don't keep suggesting that there is a discount because even BT admit
> that it isn't.
A rose by any other name . . ?

>> They have presumably concluded that anything less wouldn't encourage
>> a *sufficient* number of people to opt for DD.
>>
> Probably and I would assume they worked out what the maximum that they
> thought they could get away with was.
>
>> In my view, this is a perfectly reasonable business decision - and it
>> matters not one jot how the size of the incentive relates to the
>> marginal cost of transaction processing. Customers still have a
>> choice if they *really* don't want to use DD.
>>
> So if they decided next week that they would charge ten pounds for
> those who pay by DD and fourteen pounds fifty for those who pay cash
> you would be happy.
>
If that was my total quarterly bill, I'd be delirious! If they increased my
quarterly rental from £33 to £43, of course I wouldn't be very happy.
Whether they called it charge for using DD or called it part of the rental
would make no difference - what matters is what I actually *pay*, not how
it's described.


>> Unlike you, I don't see a distinction between the way in which the
>> service itself is priced and the method of collection is priced.
>> They are both an integral part of BT's business model.
>>
> They are entitled to charge what they believe they can get away with
> for the service that they provide but IMO should not be charging a
> premium rate for collection of the money as it isn't part of the
> service that they provide. I have no argument about them passing on
> the costs of collection but I do object to them charging extra to
> make an additional profit.

As discussed earlier, unless explicitly forbidden by the regulator - or by
the law generally - they can charge what they like, or what they think they
can get away with. I've no idea whether they're making extra profit out of
non-DD payers or not. Have you? In order to give a definitive answer, you'd
need to estimate the benefit to the business of all the factors I listed
earlier - plus any others I missed. For example, how much is the reduction
in churn worth to BT?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vnalF26vhotU1@mid.individual.net
>
> [snip]
>
>> In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one price
>> if you pay by DD, a higher price if you don't. You
>> choose.
>
> You may not be able to choose.
>
>> It's not something imposed after the event
>> because you failed to comply with T&Cs.
>
> It's still unfair. Many people have a genuine reason for not wanting
> to pay by DD. Some people (Shock..! Horror..!) don't even have a bank
> account, so *can't* pay by DD. Why should someone be forced to pay
> extra because they choose not to open a bank account..? You will
> never convince me it costs more to pay by cash at the post office,
> the end result is the same, they get their money on time.
>
> Ivor

There can't be many people without a bank account of some sort now that all
state benefits have to be paid into an account.

I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be from people who are
unable to organise their finances in a way which ensures that there is money
available in their account to pay the DD. If this is the case, many of these
people won't be able to pay their bill on time by *any* means. At the risk
of getting my head chopped off, I would venture to suggest that BT probably
doesn't want to keep these people as customers.

Whatever you may think about the merits of privatisation, you have to accept
that BT is now a commercial outfit - with shareholders - *not* a public
service.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In message <55vobaF2770jfU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> In message <55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes

>>> I would describe it as a marketing decision by BT.
>>>
>> I would agree.
>>
>That's not what you said earlier!
>
I believe that it was a decision in which BT decided how much they think
that they can get away with and such business decision will inevitably
involve a marketing decision. I don't accept that it was a fair
decision to charge more than what it costs them which is why I object to
the decision to impose a penalty charge.

>> So if they decided next week that they would charge ten pounds for
>> those who pay by DD and fourteen pounds fifty for those who pay cash
>> you would be happy.
>>
>If that was my total quarterly bill, I'd be delirious! If they increased my
>quarterly rental from £33 to £43, of course I wouldn't be very happy.
>Whether they called it charge for using DD or called it part of the rental
>would make no difference - what matters is what I actually *pay*, not how
>it's described.
>
I take your point about the total sum being the important factor but it
is important how it is arrived at. Some people do not have the option
of paying by DD or choose not to pay that way and are going to be
penalised because BT have decided that they will charge them more. It
doesn't bother you because you pay by DD but some of those who can't may
already be struggling to pay as it is and imposing penalty charges is
unfair.
>>>
>> They are entitled to charge what they believe they can get away with
>> for the service that they provide but IMO should not be charging a
>> premium rate for collection of the money as it isn't part of the
>> service that they provide. I have no argument about them passing on
>> the costs of collection but I do object to them charging extra to
>> make an additional profit.
>
>As discussed earlier, unless explicitly forbidden by the regulator - or by
>the law generally - they can charge what they like, or what they think they
>can get away with. I've no idea whether they're making extra profit out of
>non-DD payers or not. Have you?

According to what I have read they will make quite a considerable extra
profit from the charge at that level. The cost is probably less than a
pound and most likely nearer to 50p so that is potentially an extra
sixteen pounds per annum from every customer who does not pay by DD.

>In order to give a definitive answer, you'd
>need to estimate the benefit to the business of all the factors I listed
>earlier - plus any others I missed. For example, how much is the reduction
>in churn worth to BT?

These factors should be built into the pricing structure not added on as
a penalty charge. As a matter of principle I have written to BT so it
will interesting to see what the response is.
--
Paul Harris

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vp3lF26pf24U1@mid.individual.net
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in
> > message news:55vnalF26vhotU1@mid.individual.net
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one
> > > price if you pay by DD, a higher price if you don't.
> > > You choose.
> >
> > You may not be able to choose.
> >
> > > It's not something imposed after the event
> > > because you failed to comply with T&Cs.
> >
> > It's still unfair. Many people have a genuine reason
> > for not wanting to pay by DD. Some people (Shock..!
> > Horror..!) don't even have a bank account, so *can't*
> > pay by DD. Why should someone be forced to pay extra
> > because they choose not to open a bank account..? You
> > will never convince me it costs more to pay by cash at
> > the post office, the end result is the same, they get
> > their money on time. Ivor
>
> There can't be many people without a bank account of some
> sort now that all state benefits have to be paid into an
> account.

Maybe so, but someone should still be able to choose how they pay a bill
without penalty. As long as the bill is paid on time, there should be no
difference.

> I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be
> from people who are unable to organise their finances in
> a way which ensures that there is money available in
> their account to pay the DD.

You can suggest it, but some people simply prefer to deal in cash.

> If this is the case, many of
> these people won't be able to pay their bill on time by
> *any* means. At the risk of getting my head chopped off,
> I would venture to suggest that BT probably doesn't want
> to keep these people as customers.
> Whatever you may think about the merits of privatisation,
> you have to accept that BT is now a commercial outfit -
> with shareholders - *not* a public service.

That's the problem, the purpose of a company should be to serve its
customers. Profit is not a dirty word, but it should not come before
service.

Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>> Whatever you may think about the merits of privatisation,
>> you have to accept that BT is now a commercial outfit -
>> with shareholders - *not* a public service.
>
> That's the problem, the purpose of a company should be to serve its
> customers. Profit is not a dirty word, but it should not come before
> service.
>

I wish that were true! In reality, companies serve the *shareholders* - and
try to keep enough of the customers happy enough of the time to be able to
turn in a healthy profit. They ain't going to do anything for the benefit of
the customer unless it's also for the benefit of the bottom line.

I, for one, regret how far we've gone down the capitalist route - but it's
unfortunately a fact of life.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>> In order to give a definitive answer, you'd
>> need to estimate the benefit to the business of all the factors I
>> listed earlier - plus any others I missed. For example, how much is
>> the reduction in churn worth to BT?
>
> These factors should be built into the pricing structure not added on
> as a penalty charge. As a matter of principle I have written to BT
> so it will interesting to see what the response is.

Why? If you can quantify the effect of customer behaviour on your
profitability, what's wrong with differentiating? You'll be telling me next
that insurance companies should charge everyone the same for a given class
of insurance regardless of individual risk.

There are often valid reasons for charging different customers different
prices for what is essentially the same service.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>
>> If one pays quarterly the additional charge is £4.50 which does not
>> relate to the cost of processing the transaction and must therefore
>> be a penalty charge. How else would you describe it?
>
> I would describe it as a marketing decision by BT.
>
> They clearly *want* people to pay by DD because:
> * it assures them of their revenue
> * it avoids having to chase bad debts
> * it ensures that payments are automatically matched to accounts, with no
> manual intervention
> * it reduces churn (inertia makes it less likely that customers will
> change suppliers)
>
> All of these things have a *value* to BT over and above the simple cost of
> transaction processing. BT have taken the marketing decision that they
> want the overwhelming majority of their customers to pay by DD and are
> prepared to give a discount of £1.50 per month as an incentive to
> encourage this. They have presumably concluded that anything less wouldn't
> encourage a *sufficient* number of people to opt for DD.
>
> In my view, this is a perfectly reasonable business decision - and it
> matters not one jot how the size of the incentive relates to the marginal
> cost of transaction processing. Customers still have a choice if they
> *really* don't want to use DD.
>
> Unlike you, I don't see a distinction between the way in which the service
> itself is priced and the method of collection is priced. They are both an
> integral part of BT's business model.
>
> I should perhaps point out that I'm no apologist for BT. I pay them as
> little as possible - just renting my line from them but making virtually
> all my calls [1] via a third party operator - and getting my broadband
> from an independent ISP [well they *were* before BT took them over!]. I'm
> happy to pay by DD in return for a reasonable discount - but not happy to
> forego paper bills for a miserly 25p per month - they'd have to do better
> than that! But I simply don't understand why all this bleating has
> suddenly started - egged on by Watchdog - about something which is a
> long-established - and perfectly reasonable - practice.
>
> [1] I ensure that I make just sufficient calls via BT to qualify for free
> caller display and 1571.
> --
> Cheers,
> Roger


They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.

If they wanted people to move to direct debit why not give a huge discount
(that's discount not a charge) to those who pay using DD.

I am sure many more would move to that payment method then.

Those that still pay by other methods have long resisted the discount offer
so do you really think it will make much of an impact on them unless they
give say a 50% reduction or more.

BT seem to like make their customers angry, even those who pay every bill on
time.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:

>
> They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.
>

This is getting to be a bit like a gramophone record! Regardless of what
they *call* it, it's the *same* thing. Those who pay by DD pay less than
those who don't.

Which part of that don't you understand?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In message <55vslcF274b6kU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes

>Why? If you can quantify the effect of customer behaviour on your
>profitability, what's wrong with differentiating? You'll be telling me next
>that insurance companies should charge everyone the same for a given class
>of insurance regardless of individual risk.
>
Not at all that isn't what is happening as the charge is nothing to do
with the service that is being provided that charge relates only to the
way in which the bill is paid.

>There are often valid reasons for charging different customers different
>prices for what is essentially the same service.

They are charging everyone the same price for the same service according
to the published pricing structure so we are all equal (I think). The
objection is because they are now charging an additional sum, which
exceeds any respective cost, which is based on someone's preferred
method of payment. If you offer to pay the bill then I don't see why
you should be charged extra just because BT would rather you did so by
DD.
--
Paul Harris

Roger Mills wrote:

> [snip]
> I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be from people who are
> unable to organise their finances in a way which ensures that there is money
> available in their account to pay the DD.

Rubbish. There are millions of people who object to anyone apart from
themselves having *any* sort of control over their own bank account.
And I "would suggest" that they have rather more intelligence than those
who implicitly trust any commercial organisation to have such control.

Malcolm

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vsvrF26m5qhU1@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
>>
>> They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.
>>
>
> This is getting to be a bit like a gramophone record! Regardless of what
> they *call* it, it's the *same* thing. Those who pay by DD pay less than
> those who don't.
>
> Which part of that don't you understand?
> --
> Cheers,
> Roger
>

I never changed the wording BT did.

dis·count (dskount, ds-kount)
v. dis·count·ed, dis·count·ing, dis·counts
v.tr.
1. To deduct or subtract from a cost or price.
2.
a. To purchase or sell (a bill, note, or other commercial paper) at a
reduction equal to the amount of interest that will accumulate before it
matures.
b. To lend money on (a commercial paper not immediately payable) after
deducting the interest.
3.
a. To sell or offer for sale at a reduced price.
b. To reduce in quantity or value.
4.
a. To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard:
discount a rumor.
b. To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; minimize: took
care not to discount his wife's accomplishments.
c. To regard with doubt or disbelief.
5. To anticipate and make allowance for; reckon with in advance

charge (chärj)
v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
v.tr.
1. To impose a duty, responsibility, or obligation on: charged him with the
task of watching the young swimmers.
2. To set or ask (a given amount) as a price: charges ten dollars for a
haircut.
3. To hold financially liable; demand payment from: charged her for the
balance due.
4. To postpone payment on (a purchase) by recording as a debt: paid cash for
the stockings but charged the new coat.
5.
a. To load to capacity; fill: charge a furnace with coal.
b. To saturate; impregnate: The atmosphere was charged with tension.
6. To load (a gun or other firearm) with a quantity of explosive: charged
the musket with powder.
7. To instruct or urge authoritatively; command: charged her not to reveal
the source of information.
8. Law To instruct (a jury) about the law, its application, and the weighing
of evidence.
9. To make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame: The police
charged him with car theft. Critics charged the writer with a lack of
originality.
10. To put the blame for; attribute or impute: charged the accident to the
driver's inexperience.
11. To attack violently: The troops charged the enemy line.
12. Basketball To bump or run into (a defender) illegally while in
possession of the ball or having just made a pass or shot.
13. Sports
a. To bump (an opponent) so as to knock off balance or gain control of the
ball, as in soccer.
b. To body-check (an opponent) illegally, from behind or after taking more
than two strides, as in ice hockey.
14. Electricity
a. To cause formation of a net electric charge on or in (a conductor, for
example).
b. To energize (a storage battery) by passing current through it in the
direction opposite to discharge.
15. To excite; rouse: a speaker who knows how to charge up a crowd.
16. To direct or put (a weapon) into position for use; level.
17. Heraldry To place a charge on (an escutcheon).

Do you work for BT?

Maybe an indian call centre! as you dont seem to understand English.

A charge is not the same as a discount.

On 2007-03-16, It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vsvrF26m5qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.
>>>
>>
>> This is getting to be a bit like a gramophone record! Regardless of what
>> they *call* it, it's the *same* thing. Those who pay by DD pay less than
>> those who don't.
>>
>> Which part of that don't you understand?
>
> I never changed the wording BT did.
>
> dis·count (dskount, ds-kount)
> v. dis·count·ed, dis·count·ing, dis·counts
> v.tr.
> 1. To deduct or subtract from a cost or price.
[snip]
> charge (chärj)
> v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
> v.tr.
> 2. To set or ask (a given amount) as a price: charges ten dollars for a
> haircut.

> 16. To direct or put (a weapon) into position for use; level.
> 17. Heraldry To place a charge on (an escutcheon).
>
> Do you work for BT?
>
> Maybe an indian call centre! as you dont seem to understand English.
>
> A charge is not the same as a discount.

A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.

It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.

--
David Taylor

David Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
>
> A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
> as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
>
> It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
>

The point is that if fees are regulated then a company
that removes a "discount" for a certain group of people and
replaces it with a "charge" on the non-discount people
effectively enables said company to evade regulation of its
fees and charge more to everyone than they otherwise would
have been allowed to do.

Malcolm

"Frogman" <uk_frogman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:mn.82fc7d739c2e6d0c.60348@frogman.org.uk...
> on 16/03/2007, Paul Harris supposed :
>> I know and alternatively I could move away from BT altogether but that
>> isn't really the point.
>
> And from the 01/05/2007 BT will charge £5:00 to all customers who cease
> service with them
>
Thats now been withdrawn and removed from the May update website

Stephen

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> If you offer to pay the bill then I
> don't see why you should be charged extra just because BT would
> rather you did so by DD.

Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm not
aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.

If that were to happen, I firmly believe it would be to the detriment of DD
payers not to the benefit of non-DD payers - except for giving them the
dubious satisfaction of knowing that we were paying the same as them. It's
probably worse than that! If BT *is* forced to remove the differential,
there is the prospect that a lot of current DD payers will opt out, thus
increasing BT's costs - which will be passed on as still further price
increases.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Malcolm Lee <news@malREMlee45.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> Roger Mills wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be from people
>> who are unable to organise their finances in a way which ensures
>> that there is money available in their account to pay the DD.
>
> Rubbish. There are millions of people who object to anyone apart from
> themselves having *any* sort of control over their own bank account.
> And I "would suggest" that they have rather more intelligence than
> those who implicitly trust any commercial organisation to have such
> control.
> Malcolm

I'm with you *part* of the way on that. For a long time, I resisted using
DDs - prefering Standing Orders so that *I* was in control of what went out.
However, I finally succumbed - some years ago now - and have only once in
all that time had to invoke the Direct Debit Guarantee to get an erroneous
charge refunded. With on-line access to one's bank account, you can keep a
close eye on it and very quickly detect any erroneous charges - thus largely
mitigating the effect of having "implicit trust in commercial
organisations".

Once you get used to the concept, it saves a hell of a lot of hassle. For
example, my credit card bills are paid off in full every month without my
having to do anything except for ensuring that there is enough money in the
account. If you want to ensure that your bills are paid without having to
remember to pay each one manually, DD is actually the more intelligent
option.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vsvrF26m5qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a
>>> charge.
>>
>> This is getting to be a bit like a gramophone record! Regardless of
>> what they *call* it, it's the *same* thing. Those who pay by DD pay
>> less than those who don't.
>>
>> Which part of that don't you understand?
>>
>
> I never changed the wording BT did.
>
> dis·count (dskount, ds-kount)
>
> charge (chärj)
>

You can quote dictionary definitions until you are blue in the face, but it
doesn't change the reality. I say again (ad nauseam!) "Those who pay by DD
pay less than those who don't". It matters not whether you - or BT - call it
a discount or a charge.


> Do you work for BT?
>
Absolutely not! I made my attitude towards BT perfectly clear in an earlier
post.


> Maybe an indian call centre! as you dont seem to understand English.
>

I understand English perfectly. What's more, I understand the underlying
meaning of what is being discussed rather than relying on semantics.

> A charge is not the same as a discount.

In absolute terms that is true. But in the context of this particular
discussion, there is an equivalence. Whether DD payers pay less due to a
discount or non-DD payers pay more because of a charge, the *effect* is
exactly the same.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Stephen Wray <stephen_wray@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Frogman" <uk_frogman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.82fc7d739c2e6d0c.60348@frogman.org.uk...
>> on 16/03/2007, Paul Harris supposed :
>>> I know and alternatively I could move away from BT altogether but
>>> that isn't really the point.
>>
>> And from the 01/05/2007 BT will charge £5:00 to all customers who
>> cease service with them
>>
> Thats now been withdrawn and removed from the May update website
>
> Stephen

Do you have a link to the May update website?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Malcolm Lee <news@malREMlee45.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> David Taylor wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
>> as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
>>
>> It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
>>
>
> The point is that if fees are regulated then a company
> that removes a "discount" for a certain group of people and
> replaces it with a "charge" on the non-discount people
> effectively enables said company to evade regulation of its
> fees and charge more to everyone than they otherwise would
> have been allowed to do.
>
> Malcolm

You might have a point there - since the alternative would have been to put
the standard price *up* ( which they would have to get past the regulator)
but then increase the DD discount.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

spam@spam.spam declared for all the world to hear...
> The main point is, it does not cost them £4.50.

How do you know? Are you intimately familiar with their internal
systems?
--
Regards
Jon

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5609j2F25onhuU1@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Stephen Wray <stephen_wray@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Frogman" <uk_frogman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:mn.82fc7d739c2e6d0c.60348@frogman.org.uk...
>>> on 16/03/2007, Paul Harris supposed :
>>>> I know and alternatively I could move away from BT altogether but
>>>> that isn't really the point.
>>>
>>> And from the 01/05/2007 BT will charge £5:00 to all customers who
>>> cease service with them
>>>
>> Thats now been withdrawn and removed from the May update website
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Do you have a link to the May update website?

See http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail.../informed.html

Stephen

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5607ubF26onvnU1@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> If you offer to pay the bill then I
>> don't see why you should be charged extra just because BT would
>> rather you did so by DD.
>
> Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm
> not aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.
>
> If that were to happen, I firmly believe it would be to the detriment of
> DD payers not to the benefit of non-DD payers - except for giving them the
> dubious satisfaction of knowing that we were paying the same as them. It's
> probably worse than that! If BT *is* forced to remove the differential,
> there is the prospect that a lot of current DD payers will opt out, thus
> increasing BT's costs - which will be passed on as still further price
> increases.

I think that BT has done it this way so that it's base line rental is lower,
for advertising reasons when used by OLO, so they have to compare their
price with £11 rather than £12.50

Stephen

On Mar 15, 12:10 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> They are not giving a DD discount, they are charging those who do not
> pay by DD an additional charge. The problem is that the charge is not
> relative to the cost of collection. If BT charged an additional sum
> that reflected the processing cost, say 50p, then they would have no
> case to answer. Charging £4.50 is profiteering and is a penalty charge
> which in my opinion is illegal. It will be interesting to see if they
> get away with it but my gut feel is that they won't.
> --
> Paul Harris

These charges are lawful. The Price Indications (Method of Payment)
Regulations 1991 allow differential pricing provided the indication of
the higher price is expressed clearly, unambiguously, and that it's
easily identifiable by a consumer as applying to the goods, services,
accommodation or facilities concerned, and given prominently and
legibly.

In message <MPG.206507962d65a1c998a81e@text.usenet.plus.net >, Jon
<spam@jonparker.plus.com> writes
>spam@spam.spam declared for all the world to hear...
>> The main point is, it does not cost them £4.50.
>
>How do you know? Are you intimately familiar with their internal
>systems?

One doesn't need to be, it is relatively simple to take a good guess.

If you pay monthly the additional charge is £1.50 but if you pay
quarterly it is £4.50 (I wonder how they arrived at those figures). So
if it costs them £4.50 to process the transaction they are making a loss
on every monthly payer but if it cost costs £1.50 they are ripping off
the quarterly payers.

The actual transaction cost is probably around 50p or say a maximum of
£1.00 so on a quarterly bill they make an extra £3.50 to £4.00 on each
and every bill.
--
Paul Harris

In message <5607ubF26onvnU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> If you offer to pay the bill then I
>> don't see why you should be charged extra just because BT would
>> rather you did so by DD.
>
>Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm not
>aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.
>
I understand that trading standards are going to look at the charge
because BT say the charge is a legitimate one for administration. My
contention is that I don't believe that it really costs them £4.50 to
process a cheque or receive cash. I know that Banks like to charge but
I can't see that they would get away with charging BT that much per
transaction which means simply that BT are most probably using this as
an excuse to get an additional revenue stream.

--
Paul Harris

In message <slrnevlolq.1lk3.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk>, David
Taylor <davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> writes

>A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
>as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
>
>It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
>
You are right when it comes to the bottom line but now consider why BT
decided to call it a charge (which they should have guessed would be
unpopular) rather than giving a discount. They could easily have given
a discount to those who paid by DD, they did that before but they have
chosen instead to make an additional charge to all those who do not pay
by DD. Wouldn't possibly be a way of making the price look cheaper
would it?
--
Paul Harris

In message <1174075396.863374.207860@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
Usenet User <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On Mar 15, 12:10 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> They are not giving a DD discount, they are charging those who do not
>> pay by DD an additional charge. The problem is that the charge is not
>> relative to the cost of collection. If BT charged an additional sum
>> that reflected the processing cost, say 50p, then they would have no
>> case to answer. Charging £4.50 is profiteering and is a penalty charge
>> which in my opinion is illegal. It will be interesting to see if they
>> get away with it but my gut feel is that they won't.
>
>These charges are lawful.

I am not certain that you are right so I hope you won't mind my asking
by what authority you state that as fact?

>The Price Indications (Method of Payment)
>Regulations 1991 allow differential pricing provided the indication of
>the higher price is expressed clearly, unambiguously, and that it's
>easily identifiable by a consumer as applying to the goods, services,
>accommodation or facilities concerned, and given prominently and
>legibly.
>
But this isn't about differential pricing of the goods or service as the
price of those is the same for all. This is a differential charge based
on the preferred method of payment for the services which, although I am
not a Lawyer, I believe to be totally different.
--
Paul Harris