Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:47:20 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:

> 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

What on earth has it got to do with Trading Standards?

The fact is that it costs more to deal with certain customer groups than
others. Accepting payment by cheque costs a great deal more in
administration than accepting payment by Direct Debit.

Quite apart from the handling costs there's also the fact that people who
pay by cheque are more likely to pay late or simply forget to pay. Thus
adding to the overhead.

--
Marc Cornelius

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:52:31 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:

[snip]
> by DD. Wouldn't possibly be a way of making the price look cheaper
> would it?
[snip]

Of course it is. I think there are two things here:
1. Being able to quote a lower headline rental.
2. Often an increase in price is pyschologically more motivating than a
discount. In other words people are more inclined to do something to avoid
a price increase than they are to obtain a discount. I think this affect
has been amply demonstrated by the reaction of the press and members of
this newsgroup.

--
Marc Cornelius

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

> 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.

I assume that what is being quoted is the ability of firms to surcharge
customers who pay by credit card. *That* is certainly lawful. What BT is
doing could be considered to be equivalent to that, and may well be covered
by the same law.
--
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 <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.

But you're still getting hung up with the cost of the *transaction* rather
than the preceived *value* to BT of having their customers pay by DD.
--
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 <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?


Very probably. But, judging by the prevalence of this technique in business
generally, I doubt whether it's illegal.
--
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!

Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:

> 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?

You seriously disagree, or you're just arguing for the sake of it?

> Are you intimately familiar with their internal
> systems?

If it costs them that much, then they are extraordinarily ineffecient,
even by their standards. I find it more plausible that they are just
being greedy.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> 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.

Nor do I, and saying a charge is legitimate is very vague anyway. It's
like using the term 'reasonable.'

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In message <560g8cF26tsn6U1@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:
>>
>> 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.
>
>But you're still getting hung up with the cost of the *transaction* rather
>than the preceived *value* to BT of having their customers pay by DD.

It is not just me, BT stated that the charge is legitimate as it is to
cover the additional cost of administration which I read as being to
cover the cost of the transaction. They didn't say this is a penalty to
make up what we consider to be the perceived value.
--
Paul Harris

In message <2zj0r7n1sa0n.1osyql1ey3tcz.dlg@40tude.net>, Marc
<marc.p.cornelius@googlemail.com> writes
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:47:20 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>What on earth has it got to do with Trading Standards?
>
Don't ask me, ask them. I would go for misrepresentation if was in
their position as the charge is being presented as being for additional
administrative expenses and I would ask that they justify it on those
grounds.

>The fact is that it costs more to deal with certain customer groups than
>others. Accepting payment by cheque costs a great deal more in
>administration than accepting payment by Direct Debit.
>
There is no reason that it should cost a great deal more, I agree that
it will probably cost more but not a great deal more and certainly not
as much as £4.50 per transaction.

>Quite apart from the handling costs there's also the fact that people who
>pay by cheque are more likely to pay late or simply forget to pay. Thus
>adding to the overhead.
>
They also have a separate penalty charge (which has just been raised to
£7.50) for late payment so that does not wash.
--
Paul Harris

In message <560ggmF2779lkU1@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:
>>>
>> 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?
>
>Very probably. But, judging by the prevalence of this technique in business
>generally, I doubt whether it's illegal.

If they can demonstrate that the sum reflects the cost of processing
then I believe they would have a god case but if it is in excess of the
real cost then I believe that it could be tested. We will never know
how the Law will look at it until it is tested.
--
Paul Harris

In message <560g3rF26p1etU1@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 <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.
>
>I assume that what is being quoted is the ability of firms to surcharge
>customers who pay by credit card. *That* is certainly lawful.

If the surcharge relates directly to an additional cost that they have
to bear when processing the transaction then as I understand it they may
pass such cost on to the customer. That is what happens with Credit
Card payments in some cases but this I believe is different as it is my
belief the sum being charged to the customer is greater than the
additional cost of the transaction.

--
Paul Harris

On Mar 16, 8:58 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <1174075396.863374.207...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
> Usenet User <usenetu...@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 Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
Watchdog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...20070314.shtml

>
> >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

Again, the lgeal position that this is LEGAL comes from Trading
Standards themselves.

> 2. Often an increase in price is pyschologically more motivating than a
> discount. In other words people are more inclined to do something to avoid
> a price increase than they are to obtain a discount. I think this affect
> has been amply demonstrated by the reaction of the press and members of
> this newsgroup.
>
> --
> Marc Cornelius

Yea I am looking at switching to direct debit but only if its a fixed amount
and not varible, BT may keep my custom but only the line rental and I will
redirect all calls to another provider..

So who loses.

On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:

>It doesn't matter what it *costs* them. The point is that it's *worth* £1.50
>per month to BT to have you pay by DD for a host of reasons (see my other
>post). If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer this level of discount.

I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in cost for a
Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect was that it does NOT
cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each quarter than each month.

It is likely to have exactly the same cost to them for manual handling, so
1.50 might be the cost for handling by other than DD but is not reasonable
for a transaction once every 3 months to cost treble that fee.

On 16 Mar 2007, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>If I choose to pay in cash at the post office or my bank counter,
>that's up to me.

and if they choose to give a discount to someone for paying by DD, that's
up to them, however much you disaprove them having that choice!

You have to accept that there are two sides to each case - you have argued
previously that you don't accept calls with the number withheld, yet expect
others to accept such calls from you. Seems the sort of " don't do as I do,
do as I tell you " line which others might choose not to agree with!

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

>>
>> I assume that what is being quoted is the ability of firms to
>> surcharge customers who pay by credit card. *That* is certainly
>> lawful.
>
> If the surcharge relates directly to an additional cost that they have
> to bear when processing the transaction then as I understand it they
> may pass such cost on to the customer. That is what happens with
> Credit Card payments in some cases but this I believe is different as
> it is my belief the sum being charged to the customer is greater than
> the additional cost of the transaction.

I'm not sure that a credit card surcharge *does* have to reflect the actual
cost incurred by the retailer. Can you quote chapter and verse to support
your assertion?
--
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,
usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> The Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
> Watchdog.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...20070314.shtml
>

That makes very interesting reading!

Trading Standards seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the
hounds! On the one hand, they are objecting to non-DD surcharges as unfair
and disadvantaging certain sections of society - and on the the other hand
they go to great lengths to explain that these charges are lawful, as long
as information is provided to consumers in the right form.

Either way, little will happen unless the law is changed - or unless
sufficient BT customers vote with their feet, but that seems less likely
than Lloyds TSB's recent episode over foreign call centres.
--
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!

"NoNeedToKnow" <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:6tbnv290bslnquf3kmloj7sdba8b826bok@complete-pc-services.info...
> On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't matter what it *costs* them. The point is that it's *worth*
>>£1.50
>>per month to BT to have you pay by DD for a host of reasons (see my other
>>post). If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer this level of discount.
>
> I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in cost for
> a
> Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect was that it does
> NOT
> cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each quarter than each month.
>
> It is likely to have exactly the same cost to them for manual handling, so
> 1.50 might be the cost for handling by other than DD but is not reasonable
> for a transaction once every 3 months to cost treble that fee.

Thats what I have been saying.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
NoNeedToKnow <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:

> On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter what it *costs* them. The point is that it's
>> *worth* £1.50 per month to BT to have you pay by DD for a host of
>> reasons (see my other post). If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer this
>> level of discount.
>
> I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in
> cost for a Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect
> was that it does NOT cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each
> quarter than each month.
>

No, I think *you're* missing the point! I agree that the differential is
probably higher than the direct difference in cost to BT. But I'm not aware
of any basis in law which says that the differential *has* to reflect the
cost. If BT feels that this size of incentive is required to persuade enough
people to use DD, there's nothing stopping them from imposing it - however
unfair and unreasonable this may seem to some people.
--
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 <45fbacf8$0$22120$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, It's Me
<spam@spam.spam> writes
>
>Yea I am looking at switching to direct debit but only if its a fixed amount
>and not varible, BT may keep my custom but only the line rental and I will
>redirect all calls to another provider..
>
>So who loses.
>
You cannot have a DD that is for a fixed amount, agreeing to a DD means
that they can take a variable amount from your account.
--
Paul Harris

In message <1174090259.959773.201120@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk writes
>
>The Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
>Watchdog.
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...s/services/ser
>vices_20070314.shtml
>
I appreciate that they have stated that it is legal but I am not sure
that it has ever been tested in a Court.

--
Paul Harris

In message <561r7cF26s6odU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes

>Trading Standards seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the
>hounds! On the one hand, they are objecting to non-DD surcharges as unfair
>and disadvantaging certain sections of society - and on the the other hand
>they go to great lengths to explain that these charges are lawful, as long
>as information is provided to consumers in the right form.
>
>Either way, little will happen unless the law is changed - or unless
>sufficient BT customers vote with their feet, but that seems less likely
>than Lloyds TSB's recent episode over foreign call centres.

Changing isn't simple as many of the options leave you just renting the
line from BT so you will still be in the same situation of paying the
penalty charge. The other alternatives all seem to also insist on DD so
it looks like a no win situation unless enough people object to get BT
to reconsider their position.
--
Paul Harris

On Mar 17, 10:42 am, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <1174090259.959773.201...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
> usenetu...@hotmail.co.uk writes
>
> >The Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
> >Watchdog.
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...s/services/ser
> >vices_20070314.shtml
>
> I appreciate that they have stated that it is legal but I am not sure
> that it has ever been tested in a Court.
>
> --
> Paul Harris

No, it would require a change in the aforementioned regulations. The
reality is that what BT are doing is legal, and as far as the majority
of customers are concerned I would imagine it is acceptable.

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:8AwmagCYW8+FFwYv@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <45fbacf8$0$22120$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, It's Me
> <spam@spam.spam> writes
>>
>>Yea I am looking at switching to direct debit but only if its a fixed
>>amount
>>and not varible, BT may keep my custom but only the line rental and I will
>>redirect all calls to another provider..
>>
>>So who loses.
>>
> You cannot have a DD that is for a fixed amount, agreeing to a DD means
> that they can take a variable amount from your account.

Yes you can its call a Monthly Payment Plan, and is charged at the same rate
as DD

Stephen

"NoNeedToKnow" <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:n6cnv2pq80ijk6432v55qg708vlg2eqlk6@complete-pc-services.info
> On 16 Mar 2007, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > If I choose to pay in cash at the post office or my
> > bank counter, that's up to me.
>
> and if they choose to give a discount to someone for
> paying by DD, that's up to them, however much you
> disaprove them having that choice!

Hmm. You may be technically correct, but in the case of a virtual monopoly
such as BT, where many people may have no other choice of supplier, it
isn't very fair, is it..? Or is "fair" a dirty word now..?

I repeat, all customers should be charged the same price, regardless of
payment method.


Ivor

On 17 Mar, 11:59, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "NoNeedToKnow" <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:n6cnv2pq80ijk6432v55qg708vlg2eqlk6@complete-pc-services.info
>
> > On 16 Mar 2007, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > If I choose to pay in cash at the post office or my
> > > bank counter, that's up to me.
>
> > and if they choose to give a discount to someone for
> > paying by DD, that's up to them, however much you
> > disaprove them having that choice!
>
> Hmm. You may be technically correct, but in the case of a virtual monopoly
> such as BT, where many people may have no other choice of supplier, it
> isn't very fair, is it..? Or is "fair" a dirty word now..?
>
> I repeat, all customers should be charged the same price, regardless of
> payment method.
>
> Ivor

In these days of being able to CPS your calls to other providers,
including having the 3rd party provider charge the line rental
(despite it being over an Openreach line), consumers have more choice
than ever. The lines may be owned by Openreach, but it doesn't mean
the customer has to take their line rental from BT.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> In these days of being able to CPS your calls to other providers,
> including having the 3rd party provider charge the line rental
> (despite it being over an Openreach line), consumers have more choice
> than ever. The lines may be owned by Openreach, but it doesn't mean
> the customer has to take their line rental from BT.

That is true. But I wonder how many of the competitors accept payment other
than by DD.

If you switch gas and electricity suppliers it's very difficult to get a
good deal without agreeing to pay by DD.
--
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 <kdinv2doguvi8l0b0gmsuh0esp2nna1rg8@4ax.com>, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> writes
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:40:24 +0000, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>>>
>>You cannot have a DD that is for a fixed amount, agreeing to a DD means
>>that they can take a variable amount from your account.

>Yes you can, the requirement for DD is that the amount to be extracted
>from your bank account *must* be notified to you each time before it
>is extracted *unless* the payment is for a fixed amount, about which
>you have been notified as to the amount and the dates of extraction If
>the'fixed' payment needs to be changed you must be informed, in
>advance, of that change.
>
>Gas, electric, council tax, water all done on a fixed payment DD, and
>revised as necessary, and you will be informed of the new payments /
>dates in advance.
>
I think that you will find that the instruction that you give to the
Bank is to pay the supplier from your account under the Direct Debit
Guarantee scheme. The instruction does not state how much to pay which
is why when the sum changes and the supplier notifies you of the change
there is no new instruction passed to the Bank.
--
Paul Harris

In message <8K6dnbqPCeG0TGbYnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com>, Stephen Wray
<stephen_wray@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:8AwmagCYW8+FFwYv@zen50073.zen.co.uk...

>> You cannot have a DD that is for a fixed amount, agreeing to a DD means
>> that they can take a variable amount from your account.
>
>Yes you can its call a Monthly Payment Plan, and is charged at the same rate
>as DD
>
I have not seen the paperwork for that so cannot comment on that
particular option. The test is do you have to inform the Bank if the
amount changes or does the supplier change the amount?
--
Paul Harris

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

> In message <8K6dnbqPCeG0TGbYnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@bt.com>, Stephen Wray
> <stephen_wray@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:8AwmagCYW8+FFwYv@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>
>>> You cannot have a DD that is for a fixed amount, agreeing to a DD
>>> means that they can take a variable amount from your account.
>>
>> Yes you can its call a Monthly Payment Plan, and is charged at the
>> same rate as DD
>>
> I have not seen the paperwork for that so cannot comment on that
> particular option. The test is do you have to inform the Bank if the
> amount changes or does the supplier change the amount?

Yes, you're perfectly correct. The monthly payment payment plan still
requires you to sign up for a direct debit - it just that you pay the same
amount each month based on your estimated spend, and then do a
reconciliation every now and then.

You are also correct that, with *any* direct debit, the amount is not
specified in the authority which you give to the bank. The bank then pays
what is asked for by your supplier. This is why the Direct Debit Guarantee
is vitally important and enables you to require the bank to repay anything
which they have paid out on your behalf but which you subsequently dispute.
AIUI, they cannot refuse to repay you if you ask for it - even if the
payment was actually correct - although you may have to be persistent
because they will first tell you to try to resolve it with the supplier.
--
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!