Trading Standards - DD Fees

[buzby]

You might have heard in the news that Trading Standards had commented on the fact that firms that charge fees for NOT paying by DD were being 'unfair' - this was in relation to BT's plans to charge customers who did not give them unrestricted access to their bank accounts. Whilst I felt like starting to cheer that at last, some department somewhere had realised what was going on and would do something about it, the truth was slightly more disturbing.

 

There IS no national Trading Standards, it is the trading enforcement section of the local council, and with each council in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all having their own TS department, they only have responsibilities for their own council area.

 

BBC Media Selector

 

The BBC quoted story of TS's complaint over BT's charging practice came from Brent & Harrow Trading Standard Department, and their publicity-seeking staff member Steve Playil has been interviewed on the subject, but that's it! No national outcry, no possibility of the DTI enforcing a fair deal for consumers. If you feel strongly about it, you'll need to get the pen out and write to your MP, or call your OWN trading standards department to raise you concerns.

 

It might be better to do this sooner rather than later!

[rosiecotton]

I will say that most local TS departments would forward any correspondence on this matter straight to the OFT's Unfair Contract Terms Unit.

 

Maybe if the TS act as Home Authority for the company in question (for example, the local TS to British Telecom might have a direct working relationship with them) they may bring this up if they are resourced enough to do so.

 

A lot of Trading Standards departments do not have large companies of this type within their area however, and therefore do not have the clout to approach them - also even without this to consider they are unlikely to have the resources to do more than forward the matter to the OFT who have a specialist unit to deal with unfair terms.

 

Just mentioning this so you're not disappointed with any less than positive response you may get. I agree that it is a real issue and at least deserves some publicity.

[buzby]

Actually, the fact that Brent and Harrow made a little noise for something they have no control over was interesting. After speaking to my local TS department, they were of the opinion firms could 'do what they want', but agreed it was certainly unjust. It transpired their 'Director' does like unjust causes, but can only act if he receives a formal complaint (he got one hand delivered this morning). At best, the DTI will have a groundswell of TS's bringing it to their attention, at worst it raises the profile of the iniquity of it all - either way, conttacting TS, even for those who have got more important things to do, it still makes a single complaint from the public a catalyst for ending this practice.

 

Why not check on the web and drop them a note?

[lhawk]

This matter was on BBC's Watchdog on the 14th March, they suggest to write a letter to the company that is charging the non direct debit fee.

 

Letter to cut and paste below...

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

[YOUR ADDRESS]

[ADDRESS OF COMPANY – list of company addresses are below]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to protest about your penalty charge for customers who do not pay by direct debit.

I think this charge is unfair and does not reflect the true cost of processing my payment. It seems to me simply a way of increasing your revenue.

Provided I do so on time, it is my right to pay my bill however I choose. Why should I pay more just because I don't use your preferrred payment method?

I urge you to reconsider this unreasonable charge. But if you insist on continuing with it, I would expect you to demonstrate that the charge is justified. You will be aware that the law says penalty charges must be fair.

I do not believe that this is the case with yours, but look forward to hearing your explanation.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR NAME]

------------------------------------------------------------------

[lhawk]

Addresses for the above letter:

 

Phone company addresses:

BT

Customer Services

BT plc

Correspondence Centre

Durham DH98 1BT

VIRGIN MEDIA

Virgin Media - Watchdog Complaints

Matrix Court

Llansamlet

Swansea SA7 9BB

Talk Talk (mobile)

TalkTalk Telecom Limited

Customer Care

1 Portal Way

London W3 6RS

3

3 Customer Services

Hutchison 3G UK Ltd

PO Box No 333

Glasgow G2 9AG

Email: customer.services@3mail.com

O2

Jonathan Attwell

Arlington Business Centre

Millshaw Park Lane

Leeds LS11 0NE

Email: pressoffice@02.com

T-Mobile

6 Camberwell Way

Doxford

Sunderland SR3 3XN

Email: custrel@t-mobile.co.uk

Vodafone

Vodafone Customer Care,

Vodafone House,

The Connection,

Newbury,

Berkshire RG14 2FN

Orange

Orange Executive Office

Senhouse Road

Lingfield Way

Darlington

County Durham DL1 4YG

Email: executive.office@orange-ftgroup.com

Utility company addresses:

British Gas

House Contact Centre

PO Box 50

Leeds LS1 1LE

 

Powergen

PO Box 7750

Nottingham NG1 6WR

Npower

PO Box 93

Peterlee SR8 2XX

EDF Energy Customer Service Team

EDF Energy Customer Service Team

Freepost 3814

London WC1V 6AJ

[buzby]

I'm surprised it has taken this long for Watchdog to become interested in this matter. with NickyC looking positively evangelical - I brought the matter to their attention almost 3 years ago, along with Working Lunch, and didn't get a response.

 

Interesting though, BT said the DD fee helps stop people paying late, and it is unfair the burden of late payment should be shouldered by those that DO pay by DD. A pity then that Campbell didn't point out that BT are ALSO charging a late payment fee, which somewhat drives a hole through their earlier argument, and point the BT bod was trying to make.

[buzby]

The OFT have responded to my queries regarding the Trading Standard's announcement:

 

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

 

TSI is somewhat concerned that these additional charges may disadvantage sectors of the community that may not have bank accounts or may prefer to pay by other methods to keep a tight rein on their finances

 

TSI would suggest to consumers that they look very carefully at all the charges imposed by the companies they deal with and if additional charges are imposed that they do not agree with that they move to another provider. If a company does not show clearly all the charges that apply to alternative methods of payments they may be committing offences under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and consumers should contact either their local Trading Standards or Consumer direct on 08454 04 05 06 .

 

So - the war is not over. Since these firms are unwilling to challenge us in the courts, they could be worried a Judge may rule that £60pa is 'unreasonable'. More when I have it!

[DCG]

subbing to this

[Stillborn Crisps]

I know it sounds negative, but isn't that Watchdog letter just a bit too weak?

 

Surely no company's gonna turn round on that and say 'oh ok we'll stop doing it', even if every customer sent it in. There's too much to lose now they've found a way they can suddenly gain an extra £60pa from X% of their customer base. Has anyone had any replies yet?

 

I think it needs to be a more focused action, like the bank letters where we are in control of repayment and dictate the terms to them. And then give people all the tools so we can do it en masse.

 

I've only incurred £25 of fees so far yet though so am not really ready to make threats of court action. I know someone on here's done this with Sky for appx £120 and won. There must be many other people on here who've paid £120+ out in fees already, and could start taking action/set precedent?

[buzby]

It is weak, but there's a redraft that adds a bit more muscle in the templates - check out the thread!