Non direct debit admin fee

[millie35]

Hi

Wonder if anyone can help. I gave 02 30 days notice of my wish to terminate my mobile contract and sent the letter by recorded delivery on the 27 Feb 07. Today I received a bill for £2.94 which was a £2.50 charge for non dd admin fee plus 44p vat, am I obliged to pay?

I don't want a whole load of hassle but nor do I want to give this company money for nothing.

Thanks Millie

[davethorp]

They can be reclaimed through a similar process to claiming the bank charges.

Personally given the small sum involved I'd be tempted to pay it. You can then decide if you wish to pursue O2 to get it back or just forget about it.

I wouldn't get into too lengthy an argument with them over this at this stage. If you refuse to pay it they could default you and its not worth getting a blip on your credit record by refusing to pay.

The best approach is probably call them up, say you think the charge is unfair and unlawful and see if they will wipe it out. If not pay it and advise them you will be pursuing it (if you intend to... failing that just forget about it).

If you do pursue it after paying it normal approach is to send a prelim approach letter, then an LBA and then file a claim.

If O2 have applied other charges to your account in the past in addition to this one it may be worth sending an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and recover the whole lot in one go

[cumbria123]

I would contest it if I were you, these companies need to be told what customer service is. Why should charges be passed on to customers all the time.

It`s like BTs latest scam, pay up in ten days or we`ll charge you an extra £7.50. So you get the bill when your on holiday, you pay an extra £7.50 or you get the bill a few days later than the date on the bill, so you suddenly don`t have 10 days to pay up, you have 6 days. A proper company would send out a reminder after 30 days and be a bit more grateful to their customers.

Sorry to rant.

[millie35]

Thanks for the replies guys. I would pay up for an easy life, but I sort of felt that the fact that I had actually closed my account and 30 days later cancelled my dd meant I was in the clear. I think I sort of have the campaign bug now and don't want to let them get away with anything. I won't ring them cause that is a nightmare and by the time I get to speak to someone I am totally wound up so if I do pursue it, it will be by letter much cooler scenario.

[buzby]

They'll probably refund it - it just gets applied automatically when do payment is received via this method. It just moved the matter into greater realms of 'unfairness'. Explain of course you've cancelled the DD, the account is being closed.

[Bob_and_Wendy]

I wonder if anyone can help I have contacted Orange to request a refund of the charges they have been applying to my account as I pay by standing order or bank transfer instead of direct debit. Orange have come back stating that they will not refund these charges I am not confused as I had understood that they were not able to make these charges?
Please can someone advise me as to what I should do next?

many thanks

[Human Writes]

Best suggestion is to refer to this post below which discusses the entire issue in far more detail:

Penalties for not paying by direct debit

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbunny
I work for T-Mobile but I've never been quite sure about the legality of the £3 handling charge, and wondered if someone could clear this up for me. So is it only a penalty if it's extortionately high, or if it is for every other method of payment except direct debit? Does this mean that it is okay for T-Mobile to impose this charge, because they do allow you to pay by another method (BACS) rather than direct debit and still avoid the charge?

It is lawful.

From some earlier posts in this thread which hopefully explain things:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kewbridge
I sent off the template letter to Orange as they'd been charging me £3 a month for not paying by direct debit.

I've just had this letter back:

Dear X

Thank you for your recent correspondence, regarding our charges when bills are not paid by Direct Debit.

We introduced the charge for payment by means other than Direct Debit in 2005. This charge genuinely reflects the costs incurred in processing payments and is no way a penalty charge. In a recent statement the Trading Standards Institute confirmed that these charges are lawful.

Payment by Direct Debit is simple and easy to set up and gives you the added benefit of the Direct Debit Guarantee.

We trust this addresses your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Hakim Alazaibi
Executive Assistant

-----

So how do we find out if the Trading Standards Institute have indeed pronounced on this and what they said exactly?

Also, never been entirely sure of what benefit I gain from the Direct Debit Guarantee?

Any thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Writes
Yes they have, I asked Orange about it and they referred me to a statement the Trading Standards Institute made to Watchdog when they ran their story about these charges:

BBC - Consumer - TV and radio - Penalty charges

The Trading Standards Institute offered a statement regarding this story. It said:

"Trading Standards officers have received a number of complaints regarding the extra charge levied by some companies on consumers who pay other than by direct debit.

"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.

Basically the charge is lawful as long as it is made clear to the customer, there are several people elsewhere in the thread suggesting petitions/letters to MP's to amend the existing legislation and make it illegal which you may wish to help with if you feel strongly enough about it.

[Son of Shoestring]

Originally Posted by Human Writes

Best suggestion is to refer to this post below which discusses the entire issue in far more detail:

Penalties for not paying by direct debit

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawbunny
I work for T-Mobile but I've never been quite sure about the legality of the £3 handling charge, and wondered if someone could clear this up for me. So is it only a penalty if it's extortionately high, or if it is for every other method of payment except direct debit? Does this mean that it is okay for T-Mobile to impose this charge, because they do allow you to pay by another method (BACS) rather than direct debit and still avoid the charge?

It is lawful.

From some earlier posts in this thread which hopefully explain things:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kewbridge
I sent off the template letter to Orange as they'd been charging me £3 a month for not paying by direct debit.

I've just had this letter back:

Dear X

Thank you for your recent correspondence, regarding our charges when bills are not paid by Direct Debit.

We introduced the charge for payment by means other than Direct Debit in 2005. This charge genuinely reflects the costs incurred in processing payments and is no way a penalty charge. In a recent statement the Trading Standards Institute confirmed that these charges are lawful.

Payment by Direct Debit is simple and easy to set up and gives you the added benefit of the Direct Debit Guarantee.

We trust this addresses your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Hakim Alazaibi
Executive Assistant

-----

So how do we find out if the Trading Standards Institute have indeed pronounced on this and what they said exactly?

Also, never been entirely sure of what benefit I gain from the Direct Debit Guarantee?

Any thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Writes
Yes they have, I asked Orange about it and they referred me to a statement the Trading Standards Institute made to Watchdog when they ran their story about these charges:

BBC - Consumer - TV and radio - Penalty charges

The Trading Standards Institute offered a statement regarding this story. It said:

"Trading Standards officers have received a number of complaints regarding the extra charge levied by some companies on consumers who pay other than by direct debit.

"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.

Basically the charge is lawful as long as it is made clear to the customer, there are several people elsewhere in the thread suggesting petitions/letters to MP's to amend the existing legislation and make it illegal which you may wish to help with if you feel strongly enough about it.

I seriously doubt that the charges are lawful! Whatever the slanted spin offered by the TSI.

The Trading Standards Institute is a private professional association and more of a lobby outfit than a consumer protection entity. It was formerly known as the Institute of Trading Standards Administration.

Its website states"

"it exists to promote and protect the success of a modern vibrant economy, and to safeguard the health, safety and wellbeing of citizens by enhancing the professionalism of members in support of empowering consumers, encouraging honest business and targeting rogue traders."

Sorry to rock your leaking boat lawbunny, but I'd be a lot happier if it existed to "protect the citizen consumer from a rapacious and de facto unregulated business sector" than to ensure the success of a modern vibrant economy. After all, it is the modern vibrant economy that is shafting us all stupid everyday, isn't it.

It also clearly has no regulatory function or muscle as it only seeks to "encourage" business to be honest.

Mmmm.

"Let me see", said the business sector CEO, "shall I bow to encouragement to trade honestly (barely suppressing a smirk) -- or shall I work hard towards achieving a bonanza year end bonus/profit share, along with a hike in my remuneration package from my current £15 mill-a-year to £17.5 mill".

Mmmm.

"It's a difficult moral dilemma", said the CEO's Chairman. "allow me to offer one or two thoughts" the Chairman said scratching his ear with sagely concentration.

"If you decide to do the honourable thing - and I can understand the naive attraction of honest dealing (barely able to suppress a smirk)..." the chairman shifted in his leather armchair and took a slow deliberate sip from his crystal cognac bowl, openly luxuriating in the divine scent of the large measure of Hennessy Ellipse residing there.

"If you do do the honest thing, your Board, your shareholders and I shall remove you from your position within 72 hours".

So much for encouragement...

I know! Let's instead change the law of the land to "encourage" the
greedy buggers running the modern vibrant economy to do the right thing or face several years looking through prison bars - getting high on bad dope smuggled in by prison guards, running from the rape-intent muscle bitches - and wishing they'd been sufficiently encouraged before all their personal assets were also seized.

With that scenario in play I'm absolutely certain that most - not all - of those vibrant economy types would be positively hopping and skipping towards encouragement centres to learn how to be socially responsible.

Short of that touch your wallet everyday to see how it magically shrinks before your very eyes.

Shoestring

PS, the foregoing is freely offered as a reality check from someone who knows precisely how the vibrant business economy types actually think. It is farcical to pretend anything less. Bollocks to the weasel words of TSI. Test the interpretation of the law in court and don't be bowed by others calls to economic vibrancy.

[goodwill]

this may be worth keeping an eye on

'Cash martyr' takes BT to court for fees - Telegraph
13/02/2008

A solicitor is taking BT to court over the charges the telephone company levies on customers who pay their bills by cash.
.........
.......
The case will be heard next month at Walsall County Court. District Judge Hearne has already ruled that her claim is "of considerable public importance".

[Son of Shoestring]

Originally Posted by goodwill

this may be worth keeping an eye on

Excellent news! Saves me the hassle of doing it (wuz waiting for the statement from the OFT later this month before commencing).

Shoestring