Penalties for not paying by direct debit

[elliesnan]

well we will have to wait and see l won't pay their late payment charge either so should be an interesting fight!

[jezza72]

I've written directly to Ben Verwaayen, Chief Executive of BT Group plc.

 

I wonder if I get a response - anyone want a side bet??

 

I've also written to my MP. She has also written to Ben Verwaayen on my befalf!

 

 

 

I recently found the following article on a website (http://www.telecoms.com):

 

'UK incumbent British Telecom has been accused of "financial blackmail" by Members of Parliament (MPs) for charges on customers who do not pay their telephone bills by direct debit. 35 MPs have signed a Commons motion regarding the levy which David Hamilton, Labour MP for Midlothian, is leading."

 

I suggest writing to your local MP - asking them to sign the Commons motion, and asking their advice about what steps to take next...

 

 

And finally - on tonight's One Show (31/08/07), the worst company for getting hold of a real person to talk to on the phone was.... (can you guess).... yep, BT! It took 16 minutes of automated menu's & being on hold before the researcher got a real person to talk to....

[un1boy]

What makes me laff with this is that if the OT test caase wins, then it would to BT too - they should of waited until the case was over and then introduced the fee!!!

 

Common sense?

[buzby]

Nope - this is a different issue entirely. I raised it with my MP, who passed it to the OFT. The OFT responded first to clarify it was nothing to do with the action against banks for penalty charges, however they were aware of the 'problem' and would be watching if consumers were being disadvantaged.

 

Since then, Ireland (Republic) has totally outlawed it - only SKY TV was the major loser in this, and RoI customers now pay the same irrespective of the payment method. The OFT in the meantime has done nothing.

[un1boy]

How is it different though?

 

If they can't prove how much it costs them then surely it is unfair?

 

Also, could it be classed as discrimination?

[buzby]

No point arguing it with me - I'm only the messenger! I complained to Trading Standards, my MP, who passed it to the OFT and all said there were entitled to charge in this way (unless they subsequently decide otherwise).

 

Read this, from an earlier thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/64626-non-ddm-charges-mps.html?highlight=exclusion

 

For me, the issue isn't penalties, it is when did the consumer EVER become legally responsible for the recipients costs it processing a payment? It's a joke. You pay them by any method they offer, and THEY pay their costs in processing the payment as part of their cost of doing business.

[un1boy]

No point arguing it with me - I'm only the messenger! I complained to Trading Standards, my MP, who passed it to the OFT and all said there were entitled to charge in this way (unless they subsequently decide otherwise).

 

Read this, from an earlier thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/64626-non-ddm-charges-mps.html?highlight=exclusion

 

For me, the issue isn't penalties, it is when did the consumer EVER become legally responsible for the recipients costs it processing a payment? It's a joke. You pay them by any method they offer, and THEY pay their costs in processing the payment as part of their cost of doing business.

 

Hey mate,

 

I was not arguing with you at all - I was merely asking a question!!

 

(I hate these forums sometimes coz you can't get the tone in the posts, sorry if oyu thought I was arguing!!)

 

I agree with what you are saying in terms of them bearing the costs....banks tried doing it when they charged us to use another bank's cash machine because it costs them too - but they stopped, didn't they????

 

:)

[buzby]

I think they didn't pursue this because they all had a hand in the latest ploy, 'private firm' ATMs that DO charge. The trouble is most of the UK public don't care, just roll over, and pay.

[un1boy]

Yeh, I guess.....that is the problem with the UK public, eh?

[mick094m]

Need a bit of advice as I have been in the same position over these charges,I cancelled my direct debit ages ago after Telewest (now Virgin Media) took a double wammy out of my account,i.e. two payments( direct debits) at once by their mistake, and left my account up the swanny, causing other d/d to fail as it was at the end of the month, and my benefits had not gone in. and I had no budjeted for this extra amount vanishing from my account,it took me ages to get the money back into my account(with no extra payment for the inconvenience they caused) as Telewest at the time told me, I had to go to my Local Building Society Branch and get them to request that it be refunded back into my account (quick taking it out but not so quick getting it back).Anyway thats history, and now I want someone to explain to me the difference in paying by "cash" into a "Paypoint" as apposed to direct debit,is it faster, slower,or what or is it just the fact that it is just one of those things that they ignore in order to charge us the penalties,in my opinion there does not seem to be any difference as it is an electronic transfer,only difference is that "I" have control of when it is paid as to opposed to them taking the direct debits when ever they feel like. and I am aware that I have the option of deciding the date when the direct debit is taken out and this was the case,( it was supposed to be taken at the beginning of the month not the end of the month and not a DOUBLE DEBIT) but they have a habit it of changing things to suit them selves.

I consider that it is not right for a penalty to be made if a payment is made by cash at a paypoint............plus the fact that I am paying in fact in advance for a service that has not been provided at the time of payment.

[buzby]

Paypoint is a third-party payment system and any amount you pay in at the shop counter has quite a high percentage 5-7% deducted before it arrives at the recipient. Therefor if you were paying Virgin, not only would it take up to 5 days to reach your account, they would not receive all of the funds you paid in, these would have been swallowed up in fees by the retailer and PayPoint service.

 

Effectively, you would be supporting VMs argument that they need to charge more for non-DD payments, as you would be getting your services at a discount, compared to those who paid in full. (If you see what I mean). The best way is to use PC or Phone Banking, this way the delay is usually only 3 days maximum, and the amount you send is the amount they receive.

 

So, you are in error by surmising a PayPoint paying cash is the same as handing it over to VM's branch office (if they had one). It isn't!

[mick094m]

Thats the other point I was going to make they closed all the shops down so you could not pay by cash, which in my opinion cash was a better method of paying for them as it was instant with no deductions so we all end up as victims of the rip off cashless society,so we are just peeing against the wind they all have us over a barrel.

[mick094m]

By the way what is pc and phone banking how do you go about that?

[buzby]

They argue they have to employ staff, pay rent and rates and shift coins around so it certainly is not without additional overheads. Do remember, you used to be able to pay your BT bill at a phone shop, now just a memory. Phone Shops were sold to O2 (the mobile network) and that facility disappeared, before BT sold off O2 to Telefonica.

 

PC and/or Phone Banking is a facility offered by most of the High Street banks, there are also Internet Based banks like Egg, Cahoot and First Direct, to name just a few.

[buzby]

Stand up T-Mobile, and take a bow. Their new contracts have a new definition for the annoying 'Non DD payment' charge. Here are the terms;

 

A £3 separate payment handling charge applies for processing payments by methods other than direct debit or BACS payments made via online or telephone banking.

As you can see, the stranglehold has been broken and a MUCH fairer system in place. If you know of any other firms that are offering a similar waiver, do let us know!

[sytra]

Maybe im missing something here!!!!! we run a small business and accept all forms of payment, maybe we should start charging to recieve cheques etc could make a fortune..... seriously though we do accept all payment types and as such we have to accept that the banks charge us to pay these in why cant these massive multi million pound co's take a small cut in profit to keep the customer happy, oh of course i know why... the fat cats cant do without 5 or 6 holidays a year or with out their big posh rollers etc

[Mark_Blackpool]

I don't run my own business any more (thank God!) however we always accepted both cash and cheques. It did occur to me though that a fair way to continue to accept cheques without the nuisance overhead of having to go to the Bank and pay them in once a week always existed:

 

Cash had to be paid in at our Bank and the customer was asked to keep a receipt.

 

No need to surcharge for cheque payment, just simply, the same rule as cash: if you want to pay by cheque then you put it in our account for us at the Bank Branch and get a receipt for paying it in, we'll credit it on the day it clears (say day of paying in plus three days), if you post it to us, we'll post it back to you: you put it in the account not us.

 

Or send a BACS payment instead, or pay by debit card.

[AnimalMagic]

Well today BT cut me off for not paying this fee...

 

Anyone want to get together to do a class action against BT?

[The Phantom]

Similar problem with Talk Talk

Always paid them by DD on a set date at the end of the month (29th) to coincide with payday

When we changed to a different call plan they changed our direct debit date without informing us and started to take money suddenly on the 23rd of every month before payday causing us financial problems

When we first phoned them they said they would put the date back but never did, so we eventually cancelled the DD as they were sending us round in circles on their so-called help lines.

Today we got a letter informing us we will incur additional charges of £3.50/month if not paying by DD and to put a DD back in place

The letter states if we were not happy with the DD date we could just file a direct debit mandate and then pay by card over the phone instead every month and no charge would be incurred.

How on earth do they work that one out ? Just for placing a mandate on their system they won't charge me the £3.50 ? Why can't I simply pay by phone every month WITHOUT having a mandate on the system ? But in that case I would get charged £3.50 extra

If they are claiming these charges are for processing the payment, then they have just shot themselves in the foot. Because the processing would be the same for them in either of the above scenarios (payment by card over the phone), the only difference being their system having a DD mandate.

Any ideas anybody ?

[buzby]

It's quite logical - because that's the way their IT guys have set up the system! IF there are DD instructions on file, AND the account is in credit (because you made a card payment), the DD won't be taken and the fee for non-DD will not be applied. However the same would apply if you posted them a cheque in good time for the debit date.

 

Of course it's not a 'processing fee' whatever gave you that idea? Folk are brainwashed into believing that they must somehow pay their suppliers costs for back-office systems to provide yet another profit and revenue stream. If people had the sense to react and leave the firms that try this on, they'd soon stop it.

 

It'll be interesting to see how OFCOM will rule on this type of unlicensed banditry, as they're currently looking at it.

[The Phantom]

The problem is, if I let them set up a new direct debit just to hold on file, they will no doubt set it up for the 23rd again, but I cannot pay them until the 29th of each month, so by the time I am ready to pay with my card they would have already used the direct debit mandate and I would be in the same position as before.

They have just for an unknown reason moved the collection date forward in the month , without asking or consulting me and now refuse to move it a few days back again

When we asked them why it was moved they didn't even know the answer to it.

The computer just shows a collection date of the 23rd now rather than the 29th and that's it as far as they are concerned

[The Phantom]

PS : I had the idea just to tell them to forget it all and to change to a new provider, set up a new DD with a new provider for a date that suits me, but then I am locked into a contract with TalkTalk, so can't even do that for a fair few months yet

So by the looks of it I have no option but to pay those £3.50 extra a month although I HAD to cancel the DD because TalkTalk misused it and caused me financial problems by taking money before the agreed date

It all stinks, I am sorry. It is just such a rip

[Chickenlicken]

There is a petition going for this;

 

Petition to: To make it illegal for companies to impose an administration charge if not wishing to pay Via Direct Debit.

 

There aren't many on it so come on you lot!

[meagain]

... although I HAD to cancel the DD because TalkTalk misused it and caused me financial problems by taking money before the agreed date ...

 

This is all covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee, which (as we all know) is worth slightly less than the electrons it's carried on. On a more serious note, it's a damn good argument for insisting they give the money back - it's unfair to you specifically because your not paying by DD has come about not by your choice but by their mistakes. The whole non-DD fee is still a grey area (thanks to the incompetents at the OFT who gave out a figure, the incompetents at OFCOM who gave their approval, and the incompetents at TS who won't touch it with a barge-pole), but you being made to pay for their mistakes is cut-and-dry extortion.

[The Phantom]

There is a petition going for this;

 

Petition to: To make it illegal for companies to impose an administration charge if not wishing to pay Via Direct Debit.

 

There aren't many on it so come on you lot!

 

This should be made a bit more public on the CAG site, can this not be made into a sticky or put into a prominent position on the site ?