Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

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..!)

Ivor

"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.

"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.

Gonz wrote:
>
> 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.

I'm sure Orange's charge is £3 per month too, and worse I think the
charge is per *handset* rather than account?

It doesn't apply to me, but to a family with 3 or 4 contract phones it'd
be £108-£144 a year!

"Simon Dobson" <replytogroup@nospam.domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:55ro36F2633bfU1@mid.individual.net...
> Gonz wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'm sure Orange's charge is £3 per month too, and worse I think the
> charge is per *handset* rather than account?
>
> It doesn't apply to me, but to a family with 3 or 4 contract phones
> it'd be £108-£144 a year!

X so many thousands = million$$$$

"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.

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

> 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..!)
>
> Ivor

I can't honestly see what all the fuss is about!

BT have had a £1 per month discount for using DD for a long time. So they
are raising it to £1.50 So what?

People have a *choice* so it isn't a penalty charge as such. I *choose* to
pay for my electricity and gas by DD because it's cheaper. Ditto with BT.

BT is going to make its profit *somehow*. If it is prevented by law from
having a differential between those paying by DD and those not, the line
rental will go up for *everybody*. Is *that* the result that WD wants?
--
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 <55sh96F26c6eaU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>
>I can't honestly see what all the fuss is about!
>
Well for a start not everyone has a Bank account but let's look at the
how fair the charge really is.

The cost to BT or anyone else collecting a payment by anything other
than DD is probably in the order of fifty pence to a pound so why should
they be allowed to get away with charging their customers more than it
costs?

The charge does not reflect the cost of processing the payment and is
therefore a penalty charge which will just contribute additional profit
to their bottom line. They provide a service which has a cost, people
use that service and are willing to pay for it. Those customers should
be given the option to pay in a number of ways without having to incur
additional costs because they do not wish to pay by DD.

You may think it is reasonable that they should profit from this but
many don't agree and think that if there is a charge it should reflect
the real cost of processing the transaction and not be used as a means
of making additional profits.

--
Paul Harris

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
milou <puce@zig.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:17:24 -0000, "Roger Mills"
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I can't honestly see what all the fuss is about!
>>
>> BT have had a £1 per month discount for using DD for a long time. So
>> they are raising it to £1.50 So what?
>>
> I hope you are being sarcastic.
>

No, I'm perfectly serious!


> I don't pay DD and my bill is going up by £ 1.50

But it isn't going up by £1.50 - you're *already* paying £1 per month extra
than those paying by DD. Why haven't you complained about that? So this is
an extra 50p, not £1.50

> Why should I pay for your discount ?

Let me turn that round. Why should *I* pay for *your* refusal to pay be DD?
Let's be clear about this. If BT are prevented from giving a DD discount,
the price for DD payers will go *up* - it won't come down for non-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!

In message <55smleF25vdofU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>Why should *I* pay for *your* refusal to pay be DD?

You shouldn't.

>Let's be clear about this. If BT are prevented from giving a DD discount,
>the price for DD payers will go *up* - it won't come down for non-DD payers.

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

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:bxE$WFzJoR+FFwOs@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <55sh96F26c6eaU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>>
>>I can't honestly see what all the fuss is about!
>>
> Well for a start not everyone has a Bank account but let's look at the how
> fair the charge really is.
>
> The cost to BT or anyone else collecting a payment by anything other than
> DD is probably in the order of fifty pence to a pound so why should they
> be allowed to get away with charging their customers more than it costs?
>
> The charge does not reflect the cost of processing the payment and is
> therefore a penalty charge which will just contribute additional profit to
> their bottom line. They provide a service which has a cost, people use
> that service and are willing to pay for it. Those customers should be
> given the option to pay in a number of ways without having to incur
> additional costs because they do not wish to pay by DD.
>
> You may think it is reasonable that they should profit from this but many
> don't agree and think that if there is a charge it should reflect the real
> cost of processing the transaction and not be used as a means of making
> additional profits.
>
> --
> Paul Harris

Well said Paul,

What some people don't get is that BT used to give a discount for direct
debit payments now they have changed that to an additional cost if you don't
use direct debit.

We chose not to take advantage of the discount for direct debit but now we
are being charged for paying or bill on time through another method.

Do you think this charge will stay at £4.50 because I don't, that's why the
change from a discount to a charge.

Now I may monthly, yes that's 12 times a year but those who pay quarterly
pay four times a year, so if the £4.50 is what it costs them why do I pay
the same yearly as the people who pay quarterly.

Something is wrong, either the quarterly payment people are paying to much
or the monthly people are paying to less. But I think we are all paying
more than it costs.

So where is the logic, why doe sit cost less to make the same payment
monthly than it does quarterly?

Mind you this is BT we are typing about.

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

>
> What some people don't get is that BT used to give a discount for
> direct debit payments now they have changed that to an additional
> cost if you don't use direct debit.
>

I'm sorry, but the subtlety of that is lost on me! For a long time BT have
charged DD payers less than non-DD payers. They will *still* be doing that.
What's the difference? Does it really matter whether you call it a DD
discount or a non-DD surcharge - the effect is *exactly* the same.

So, given that this is a long-standing arrangement, why has it suddenly
become an issue?
--
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 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:49:17 UTC, "Roger Mills"
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > I don't pay DD and my bill is going up by £ 1.50
>
> But it isn't going up by £1.50 - you're *already* paying £1 per month extra
> than those paying by DD. Why haven't you complained about that? So this is
> an extra 50p, not £1.50

He said his *bill* - which is quarterly, usually. That goes up by £1.50.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Paul Harris

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

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

Since when has *any* business been compelled to charge its customers what is
fair and reasonable? Businesses price their products according to what the
market will stand, and keep their costs as low as possible in order to
maximise their margins. It was ever thus!

Are you saying that *every* aspect of BT's pricing should reflect their
direct costs plus a small markup? You might say that inclusive call packages
are unfair because some people make lots of 'free' calls while other make
only a few. Why should daytime calls be charged at a higher rate than
off-peak - they use the same amount of electricity?!

Any company, if it is to stay in business, needs to have a business model
which ensures that it turns in a profit *overall* - with some parts of its
operation necessarily being more or less profitable than others.

On the specific question of paying your BT bill, you have (at least) two
options. You can pay by Method 1 at Price A or by Method 2 at Price B. It's
your choice. Why does Nanny State need to interfere if it considers that BT
makes more profit from one option than the other? Customers are free to
choose the cheaper option!

As I've said several times today already, if BT are forced to reduce or
eliminate the differential, they'll find another way to recoup their
revenue - with the almost inevitable result that prices will go up for
*everyone*! They'll probably then make even more profit, because everyone
will have to pay the equivalent of the non-DD price.
--
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!

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Vwnsmh8FfT+FFwOl@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <55smleF25vdofU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>>Why should *I* pay for *your* refusal to pay be DD?
>
> You shouldn't.
>
>>Let's be clear about this. If BT are prevented from giving a DD discount,
>>the price for DD payers will go *up* - it won't come down for non-DD
>>payers.
>
> 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.

Lets look at the actual facts

Current Prices per month including VAT

DD/MPP price £11
Non DD/MPP price £12

Currently get a discount of £1 per month for paying by DD
Alternatively currently get a £1 surcharge for not paying by DD

New prices
DD/MPP price £11
Non DD/MPP £12.50

So get a discount of £1.50 per month for paying by DD
Alternatively currently get a £1.50 surcharge for not paying by DD

Lets get it straight that this is not a new charge.

If you are getting charged less for paying by DD/MPP then you are getting a
discount/ by the same principle if you don't pay by DD/MPP you pay extra
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE????

Stephen

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

> "Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Vwnsmh8FfT+FFwOl@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>> In message <55smleF25vdofU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>>> Why should *I* pay for *your* refusal to pay be DD?
>>
>> You shouldn't.
>>
>>> Let's be clear about this. If BT are prevented from giving a DD
>>> discount, the price for DD payers will go *up* - it won't come down
>>> for non-DD payers.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Lets look at the actual facts
>
> Current Prices per month including VAT
>
> DD/MPP price £11
> Non DD/MPP price £12
>
> Currently get a discount of £1 per month for paying by DD
> Alternatively currently get a £1 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
> New prices
> DD/MPP price £11
> Non DD/MPP £12.50
>
> So get a discount of £1.50 per month for paying by DD
> Alternatively currently get a £1.50 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
> Lets get it straight that this is not a new charge.
>
> If you are getting charged less for paying by DD/MPP then you are
> getting a discount/ by the same principle if you don't pay by DD/MPP
> you pay extra WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE????
>
> Stephen


My point precisely! I can't understand why there is suddenly an outcry about
this now - when the general principle of giving a discount for DD was
established several years ago.
--
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!

replytogroup@nospam.domain.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
> Gonz wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm sure Orange's charge is £3 per month too, and worse I think the
> charge is per *handset* rather than account?

It's £.350 if you are on an animal or core tariff. Legacy tariffs are
still at £3.
--
Regards
Jon

puce@zig.com declared for all the world to hear...
> I don't pay DD and my bill is going up by £ 1.50
> Why should I pay for your discount ?

You are not. You have a choice. You choose to pay by other methods,
that's your lookout.
--
Regards
Jon

>
> Lets look at the actual facts
>
> Current Prices per month including VAT
>
> DD/MPP price £11
> Non DD/MPP price £12
>
> Currently get a discount of £1 per month for paying by DD
> Alternatively currently get a £1 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
> New prices
> DD/MPP price £11
> Non DD/MPP £12.50
>
> So get a discount of £1.50 per month for paying by DD
> Alternatively currently get a £1.50 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
> Lets get it straight that this is not a new charge.
>

Yes it is, I was not charged before for using non direct debit.

DD customers had a discount now they dont.

I know the payment still give sthem a discount but the wording is they dont.

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

>>
>> Lets get it straight that this is not a new charge.
>>
>
> Yes it is, I was not charged before for using non direct debit.
>
> DD customers had a discount now they dont.
>
> I know the payment still gives them a discount but the wording is
> they dont.


OK, so the *wording* has changed but the *effect* hasn't. You *were* charged
more for not using DD because you didn't get the DD discount.

So, on what grounds are you beefing about a small *wording* change?
--
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 <TbydnUr4R_MbLWTYRVnygAA@bt.com>, Stephen Wray
<stephen_wray@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Lets look at the actual facts
>
>Current Prices per month including VAT
>
>DD/MPP price £11
>Non DD/MPP price £12
>
>Currently get a discount of £1 per month for paying by DD
>Alternatively currently get a £1 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
>New prices
>DD/MPP price £11
>Non DD/MPP £12.50
>
>So get a discount of £1.50 per month for paying by DD
>Alternatively currently get a £1.50 surcharge for not paying by DD
>
>Lets get it straight that this is not a new charge.
>
>If you are getting charged less for paying by DD/MPP then you are getting a
>discount/ by the same principle if you don't pay by DD/MPP you pay extra
>WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE????
>
The fact is that B.T. supply a service at a price and that is that, no
argument, you either take the service or go elsewhere. When you come to
pay for the service if you choose to pay by anything other than DD they
make an additional charge. If that charge reflects the cost of
collection then that would be reasonable but if it exceeds the cost of
collection then IMHO it is unreasonable.

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?
--
Paul Harris

>
> OK, so the *wording* has changed but the *effect* hasn't. You *were*
> charged more for not using DD because you didn't get the DD discount.
>
> So, on what grounds are you beefing about a small *wording* change?
> --
> 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!
>

The main point is, it does not cost them £4.50.

I don't mind paying what it costs them but I dont want to be charged more
than the cost if I pay on time using some other method.

I pay monthly so if it did cost £4.50 I would have to pay it 12 times £4.50,
but I end up paying the same as a quartlet bill payer.

I am looking at switching all my calls away from BT using Primus Saver
Option 2 http://www.planet-talk.co.uk/SaverPr...x?source=saver then
when my line rental is a fixed amount I may go direct debit.

In message <55tp1qF25scrdU1@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 simple terms the charge does not reflect the cost incurred which
>> means that they are profiteering from the exercise. That means that
>> the question is do you think that charging £4.50 for a 50p cost is
>> fair and reasonable?
>
>Since when has *any* business been compelled to charge its customers what is
>fair and reasonable? Businesses price their products according to what the
>market will stand, and keep their costs as low as possible in order to
>maximise their margins. It was ever thus!
>
This is nothing to do with the price of the service, everyone pays the
same price for that. This is an additional charge that is being applied
to those who wish to pay by anything other than DD. If the additional
charge was passing on the cost of processing the transaction one could
argue that it was fair and reasonable. If it is more than the cost of
processing the transaction then it is a penalty charge for not paying by
their preferred method of payment which IMHO is not fair and reasonable.

>Are you saying that *every* aspect of BT's pricing should reflect their
>direct costs plus a small markup?

No, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the price that they charge
for the service. They price their product according to what the market
will pay and people can choose whether to take it or not. This is about
why it costs a customer more to pay by cash or cheque than it costs to
pay by DD. If you pay monthly they charge you an extra 1.50 per
transaction, if you pay quarterly they charge an extra 4.50 per
transaction. That sum does not reflect their costs it is just an
arbitrary figure that they impose on those who choose not to pay by DD
and as such it is therefore a penalty charge.
--
Paul Harris

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
______
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:

>
> The main point is, it does not cost them £4.50.
>
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. [And let's
not get into an argument about whether it's a discount for DD or a surcharge
for non-DD - it's the *same* thing].

If it's worth £1.50 per month to you *not* to pay by DD, you are perfectly
free to choose to pay by some other means.
--
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 <55vd5fF276j9uU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes

>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).

I do understand the point you are making about the reasons for what they
are doing but that doesn't make it right to charge extra if you pay
cash.

> If it wasn't, they wouldn't offer this level of discount. [And let's
>not get into an argument about whether it's a discount for DD or a surcharge
>for non-DD - it's the *same* thing].

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
>
>If it's worth £1.50 per month to you *not* to pay by DD, you are perfectly
>free to choose to pay by some other means.

I know and alternatively I could move away from BT altogether but that
isn't really the point.
--
Paul Harris

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.


--
Paul Harris

"It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:45fa68dc$0$32026$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

[snip]

> I don't mind paying what it costs them but I dont want to
> be charged more than the cost if I pay on time using some
> other method.

Sorry, but I very much *do* mind paying anything, never mind what it costs
them. The cost should be covered in the base price for the service, with
everybody paying the same, whatever means they choose to use to pay with.

Surcharge late payers by all means, but not those who pay on time by any
means. If I choose to pay in cash at the post office or my bank counter,
that's up to me.

Ivor

"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:SrZdAyE$cm+FFw+P@zen50073.zen.co.uk

[snip]

> The fact is that B.T. supply a service at a price and
> that is that, no argument, you either take the service or
> go elsewhere.

Yes exactly, at a price. How I choose to pay that price should be up to
me.

> When you come to pay for the service if
> you choose to pay by anything other than DD they make an
> additional charge. If that charge reflects the cost of
> collection then that would be reasonable

No it wouldn't, because you will never convince me that there is an extra
cost of collection.

> but if it exceeds the cost of collection then IMHO it is unreasonable.

It is unreasonable to charge any extra however the customer chooses to
pay. Tell me please, how does it cost extra to collect if I pay cash over
the counter at the post office or my bank branch than if I pay by DD..?
The transfer is still electronic, it just happens in a slightly different
way that does not, however you look at it, cost any extra.

Ivor