Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

"Lez Pawl" <Lez@Pawlbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Bv2dnVhJHZsoQmXYnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
> news:iq1Kh.101827$qq4.15189@newsfe01.ams...
>>
>> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
>> news:ti1Kh.101734$qq4.34199@newsfe01.ams...
>>>
>>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:55ridfF26968iU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Did anyone see yesterday's edition of "Watchdog" on BBC1..? Very
>>>> interesting I thought, the guy from BT in particular was squirming
>>>> rather
>>>> a lot..!
>>>>
>>>> They have put up a standard letter at
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and..._letters.shtml
>>>> (long link may wrap in which case use http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvodxj
>>>>
>>>> The letter is in RTF format (don't forget to remove the list of company
>>>> addresses before you print it..!)
>>>
>>> I don't understand why it was mainly about BT, and them chargin £4.50
>>> for 3 months.
>>> Telewest, now Virgin Media charge £15 for 3 months, and have been for
>>> ages.
>>> First it was £6, then it went up to £9, then £12, and now £15.
>>
>> And that Nicky Campbell is a right wanker.
>> Never liked him, he always comes across as he's only 'hard' cuz he's got
>> a TV crew around him.
>>
>>
>
> radio dj Aberdeen in mid 80's, moved south late 80's radio dj'ing got into
> hosting tv game shows during 90's, now on WD................so he's done
> nicely for imself.
>
>
He's a swarmy arrogant arse.
Thank heavens they never let him near Newsnight.

On 16 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Roger Mills <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes

>>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 ....

Actually I'm not sure how far they can "charge what they like" unless Ofcom
would simply turn round to complainers and say "it's free enterprise" or
something similar. We have reached a stage where the cable networks
are available to large portions of the population (if not rural areas, as
one section with more limited choices) and switching from BT for rental is
also now quite easy (whether using Bulldog, TalkTalk, or some other).

I've deliberately strayed from this DD charge difference, but maybe someone
can clarify whether the pricing for line rental is still under "control"
of Ofcom (requiring BT to justify any change, for example) ?

On 16 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>They also have a separate penalty charge (which has just been raised to
>£7.50) for late payment so that does not wash.

From memory, hasn't it gone up from 500p to 750p ? I'd expect TS to ask
them to justify that 50% increase, too, while they're making enquiries!

On 16 Mar 2007, Malcolm Lee <news@malREMlee45.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> 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.

I don't see any difference between calling it a "charge" or "fee"
nor do I see how this enables the company to evade regulation.

It does seem to be a way to allow the 'standard' price to be low
(to compete with others) and 'surcharge' only those not willing
to pay using the preferred methods (it will annoy a big? group
of customers, but those same customers will be 'out in the cold'
if they decide to 'vote with their feet' as the majority of other
services are also requiring DD payment, so the choice is between
(a) paying BT for the privilege of not using DD, or (b) using DD
(whichever firm they use)... Or very close to that choice if a
reader can come up with some alternative supplier that accepts
payment in cash/cheque. Some of the other services need CCA,
which is IMO *worse* than using DD, given the lower control the
customer has over cancelling a CC authority. NB I've not switched
service, nor looked too closely. If someone has found a 'Which?'
report on the subject, does it list payment methods, please?

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

> On 16 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Roger Mills <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>
>>> 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 ....
>
> Actually I'm not sure how far they can "charge what they like" unless
> Ofcom would simply turn round to complainers and say "it's free
> enterprise" or something similar. We have reached a stage where the
> cable networks
> are available to large portions of the population (if not rural
> areas, as one section with more limited choices) and switching from
> BT for rental is also now quite easy (whether using Bulldog,
> TalkTalk, or some other).
>
> I've deliberately strayed from this DD charge difference, but maybe
> someone can clarify whether the pricing for line rental is still
> under "control" of Ofcom (requiring BT to justify any change, for
> example) ?

As far as I know line rental is still regulated - although I have a feeling
that call prices are not now regulated - but I'm open to correction on both
points.

What is almost certainly *not* regulated (by Ofcom, at any rate) is the
surcharge which BT can impose on those who don't pay by their (BT's)
prefered method (DD or MPP). In this latest re-arrangement, BT have actually
*reduced* the headline line rental (which is unlikely to incur the wrath of
the regulator!) but have introduced a surcharge for non-DD payers - which
appears to be lawful under the same bit of legislation which allows
retailers to surcharge customers who use credit cards. This same legislation
doesn't appear to require retailers to limit any such surcharges to the
actual on-cost of accepting a particular method of payment. Hence BT's £4.50
per quarter appears to be perfectly lawful even though this is almost
certainly more than it costs them to accept payment by other methods.

I can't for the life of me see what Watchdog are getting all sexed up about.
They appear to be under the impression that differential pricing is new -
whereas BT have charged non-DD payers £3 per quarter more than DD payers for
several years. All that is changing is that (as from 1st May) the
differential will increase a bit, and it will be described as a charge to
non-DD payers rather than a discount to DD payers.
--
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:n2rqv2ttdkb3rv36qrqbjup03sd3buvvt4@complete-pc-services.info...
> On 16 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>They also have a separate penalty charge (which has just been raised to
>>£7.50) for late payment so that does not wash.
>
> From memory, hasn't it gone up from 500p to 750p ? I'd expect TS to ask
> them to justify that 50% increase, too, while they're making enquiries!

Given that its still £10 for business' still cheaper for res customers

Stephen

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5659kgF27igneU1@mid.individual.net

[snip]

> What is almost certainly *not* regulated (by Ofcom, at
> any rate) is the surcharge which BT can impose on those
> who don't pay by their (BT's) prefered method (DD or
> MPP). In this latest re-arrangement, BT have actually
> *reduced* the headline line rental (which is unlikely to
> incur the wrath of the regulator!) but have introduced a
> surcharge for non-DD payers - which appears to be lawful
> under the same bit of legislation which allows retailers
> to surcharge customers who use credit cards.

When was the last time you were actually charged more in a retail shop for
using a credit card..? The one and only time it has ever happened to me
was booking flights in a travel agent. Every other time there has been no
difference in the amount I have been billed. ISTR the receipt saying
something along the lines that there was a surcharge but that it was borne
by the retailer rather than the customer.

Ivor

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:01:12 UTC, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid>
wrote:

> When was the last time you were actually charged more in a retail shop for
> using a credit card..? The one and only time it has ever happened to me
> was booking flights in a travel agent. Every other time there has been no
> difference in the amount I have been billed. ISTR the receipt saying
> something along the lines that there was a surcharge but that it was borne
> by the retailer rather than the customer.

Yes, but the last bit is merely a tax dodge (or was...loophole may have
been closed).

--
Bob Eager
begin 123 a new life...take up Extreme Ironing!

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

> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:5659kgF27igneU1@mid.individual.net
>
> [snip]
>
>> What is almost certainly *not* regulated (by Ofcom, at
>> any rate) is the surcharge which BT can impose on those
>> who don't pay by their (BT's) prefered method (DD or
>> MPP). In this latest re-arrangement, BT have actually
>> *reduced* the headline line rental (which is unlikely to
>> incur the wrath of the regulator!) but have introduced a
>> surcharge for non-DD payers - which appears to be lawful
>> under the same bit of legislation which allows retailers
>> to surcharge customers who use credit cards.
>
> When was the last time you were actually charged more in a retail
> shop for using a credit card..? The one and only time it has ever
> happened to me was booking flights in a travel agent. Every other
> time there has been no difference in the amount I have been billed.
> ISTR the receipt saying something along the lines that there was a
> surcharge but that it was borne by the retailer rather than the
> customer.
> Ivor

High street shops tend *not* to impose a surcharge for credit card
transactions - they presumably bundle the fee into their prices on the basis
that *most* people pay by this method (so perhaps those who *don't* should
ask for a discount!).

But the point I was making is that they are *allowed* impose a surcharge if
they wish which, IIUC, *doesn't* have to reflect their actual costs.

When I referred to 'retailers' in my previous post, it was in the widest
sense, and includes any company which sells to the public, such as travel
agents. Several times in the last few years when booking package holidays,
I've been faced with a potential surcharge - sometimes amounting to hundreds
of pounds - if I pay the balance with a credit card, but this can be avoided
if I use a cheque or debit card.
--
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!

I've seen some comments in this thread to the effect that almost
everyone has a bank account now and should be able to avoid the non-DD
surcharge. But according to this letter to Guardian Money, people
with Post Office accounts can't pay by DD:

Edward Leslie (Your Shout, March 10) thinks we should stop moaning
about the BT £4.50 penalty for not paying by direct debit, because
he is OK. He is obviously unaware it will hit the poorest,
hardest. The only account that millions of pensioners and people on
benefits have is a Post Office card account which doesn't allow
direct debits.

Therefore, they will be unable to avoid this charge and those with
the lowest incomes will each be contributing to the coffers of BT.

http://money.guardian.co.uk/weekly/s...035747,00.html

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Adam Funk <a24061@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've seen some comments in this thread to the effect that almost
> everyone has a bank account now and should be able to avoid the non-DD
> surcharge. But according to this letter to Guardian Money, people
> with Post Office accounts can't pay by DD:
>
> Edward Leslie (Your Shout, March 10) thinks we should stop moaning
> about the BT £4.50 penalty for not paying by direct debit, because
> he is OK. He is obviously unaware it will hit the poorest,
> hardest. The only account that millions of pensioners and people on
> benefits have is a Post Office card account which doesn't allow
> direct debits.
>
> Therefore, they will be unable to avoid this charge and those with
> the lowest incomes will each be contributing to the coffers of BT.
>
> http://money.guardian.co.uk/weekly/s...035747,00.html

That may be true in some cases. But many of the people so affected may
possibly qualify for the Light User System (about to be replaced by BT Basic
or somesuch) - to which the financial penalty for not using DD doesn't apply
as far as I am aware.
--
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!

On Mar 19, 12:07 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've seen some comments in this thread to the effect that almost
> everyone has a bank account now and should be able to avoid the non-DD
> surcharge. But according to this letter to Guardian Money, people
> with Post Office accounts can't pay by DD:

> Edward Leslie (Your Shout, March 10) thinks we should stop moaning
> about the BT £4.50 penalty for not paying by direct debit, because
> he is OK. He is obviously unaware it will hit the poorest,
> hardest. The only account that millions of pensioners and people on
> benefits have is a Post Office card account which doesn't allow
> direct debits.

> Therefore, they will be unable to avoid this charge and those with
> the lowest incomes will each be contributing to the coffers of BT.

LOL FFS if people are that poor then why do they even have a phone?

I remember when I was at school and the phrase 'we're not on the
phone' used to be commonplace, because people made do without if they
couldn't afford something. I feel old, but it's not that long ago.

Tariq

In message <1174337076.555826.269700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
Tariq <xycom1@yahoo.com> writes
>
>On Mar 19, 12:07 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen some comments in this thread to the effect that almost
>> everyone has a bank account now and should be able to avoid the non-DD
>> surcharge. But according to this letter to Guardian Money, people
>> with Post Office accounts can't pay by DD:
>
>> Edward Leslie (Your Shout, March 10) thinks we should stop moaning
>> about the BT £4.50 penalty for not paying by direct debit, because
>> he is OK. He is obviously unaware it will hit the poorest,
>> hardest. The only account that millions of pensioners and people on
>> benefits have is a Post Office card account which doesn't allow
>> direct debits.
>
>> Therefore, they will be unable to avoid this charge and those with
>> the lowest incomes will each be contributing to the coffers of BT.
>
>LOL FFS if people are that poor then why do they even have a phone?
>
If that is your idea of a sympathetic view point let us hope that you
are never in a similar situation.

There are many elderly people with nothing other than their state
pension for income who only have a Post Office account. It is people
like them who may well need a phone as a means of contact. They will be
the ones paying an extra £18 a year to BT for the same service as the
wealthier people who pay by DD.

You may think it funny but I am can assure you that them this is no
laughing matter.
--
Paul Harris

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:AL3ZoBfAyw$FFwXY@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <1174337076.555826.269700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>, Tariq
> <xycom1@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>On Mar 19, 12:07 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen some comments in this thread to the effect that almost
>>> everyone has a bank account now and should be able to avoid the non-DD
>>> surcharge. But according to this letter to Guardian Money, people
>>> with Post Office accounts can't pay by DD:
>>
>>> Edward Leslie (Your Shout, March 10) thinks we should stop moaning
>>> about the BT £4.50 penalty for not paying by direct debit, because
>>> he is OK. He is obviously unaware it will hit the poorest,
>>> hardest. The only account that millions of pensioners and people on
>>> benefits have is a Post Office card account which doesn't allow
>>> direct debits.
>>
>>> Therefore, they will be unable to avoid this charge and those with
>>> the lowest incomes will each be contributing to the coffers of BT.
>>
>>LOL FFS if people are that poor then why do they even have a phone?
>>
> If that is your idea of a sympathetic view point let us hope that you are
> never in a similar situation.
>
> There are many elderly people with nothing other than their state pension
> for income who only have a Post Office account. It is people like them
> who may well need a phone as a means of contact. They will be the ones
> paying an extra £18 a year to BT for the same service as the wealthier
> people who pay by DD.
>
> You may think it funny but I am can assure you that them this is no
> laughing matter.

But don't forget that people on LUS or apply for the new BT basic which is
provided as part of BTs USO for people on low incomes is exempt from the
surcharge.

Stephen

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

>
> There are many elderly people with nothing other than their state
> pension for income who only have a Post Office account. It is people
> like them who may well need a phone as a means of contact. They will
> be the ones paying an extra £18 a year to BT for the same service as
> the wealthier people who pay by DD.
>
Except that most of those are - or should be - on LUS (to be replaced by BT
Basic) - to which the non-DD penalty doesn't apply.
--
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!

On 17 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>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.

You can amend the instruction (suitably dated and signed) to state a
maximum level of payment, if you wish.

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

> On 17 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> You can amend the instruction (suitably dated and signed) to state a
> maximum level of payment, if you wish.

Is that a legal requirement? Are banks bound to act on it, and not exceed
any limit which you impose?

I can manage the DDs relating to my Lloyds TSB account on-line - but there's
no facility for stating an upper limit.

I suspect that any written instruction which goes beyond the basic
information required would probably be filed in a drawer but not entered
into the computer which makes the payment descisions.
--
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!

On 2007-03-17, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, what else can they do? They may think they're unfair and
disadvantaging, but the law is as it is. Trading Standards can't
change the law directly, but they can disagree with it.

--
David Taylor

On 2007-03-17, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Of course he can't. The relevenat legislation has already been cited,
and completely ignored by him. Had he bothered to read it, he'd
notice he is completely wrong on both counts:

- It _is_ legal to charge consumers differently, soley due to the method
of payment chosen.

- The charges _do not_ need to reflect any costs bourne by the retailer.

--
David Taylor

On 2007-03-17, 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?

The supplier is required to inform YOU if the amount they will take
will change. If they don't (or even if they do) you can demand
the bank refunds the money.

--
David Taylor

On 2007-03-23, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> NoNeedToKnow <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2007, Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You can amend the instruction (suitably dated and signed) to state a
>> maximum level of payment, if you wish.
>
> Is that a legal requirement? Are banks bound to act on it, and not exceed
> any limit which you impose?

The only authority they have to pay the money is the signed form you've
given them -- if it states the authority does not exceed X amount, they
have no authority to exceed that. They may just refuse to
process the authority at all, I suppose.

> I can manage the DDs relating to my Lloyds TSB account on-line - but there's
> no facility for stating an upper limit.

Of course, when dealing with their online system you can either accept
their system's limitations, or not use it. But if you write it on the
form, it is the bank that has the choice of accepting your limitation,
or rejecting the DD authority all together. They cannot turn your
limited authority into authority to do what they like.

> I suspect that any written instruction which goes beyond the basic
> information required would probably be filed in a drawer but not entered
> into the computer which makes the payment descisions.

I suspect that would be illegal. It may just be filed in the bin, OTOH.

--
David Taylor