Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Jarvo,   Just ignore Harlands/CRS for now but keep us posted.  
    • Hi,   Someone who isn't me (SWIM) bought a parking ticket for a car park whilst on holiday paid the correct fee input their car reg went to the shops and then left in their vehicle within the required timeframe. The car park operates ANPR and a few weeks later SWIM received a PCN despite having followed all the rules of the car park. The parking company is saying that they have no record of a payment for SWIMs car. SWIM wrote to the parking company explaining that they paid and followed all the rules of the car park however the parking company replied with a standard template letter and are now adding more to their PCN and threatening court action. Unfortunately before receiving the PCN SWIMs partner threw the parking ticket away as part of cleaning out the car after the holiday.     The parking company has pictures of SWIMs car entering and leaving the car park but is saying that no number plate was entered into their machine. This is not correct the number plate was definitely inputted and the fee paid in cash. The car park is in a shocking state of disrepair and there have been several cases of the company issuing PCNs due to their own faulty equipment.     The parking company have taken people to court before and lost. However, the defendants in those cases had their tickets as proof of payment. If SWIM is taken to court their argument would be that the private parking company's (PPC) equipment must have been faulty and that the only evidence the PPC has is the car driving into and out of the carpark.  They have no real evidence of no payment. In fact CCTV footage would show a payment has been made, furthermore there were no other cars in the nearly derelict car park so if a payment was registered on the machine but not a number plate that would have to be SWIMs.    Dose SWIM no longer having a ticket ruin their chance of winning if this ends up in court? SWIM is prepared to take it to court if needed.   Are there any similar cases of people winning in court despite no longer having their parking ticket?   
    • Social services need to be given on training on how to provide direct payments! 
    • I have written to them to advise of income change and employment change .. they haven't even acknowledged the income change ..they just stated I have advised about how I'm paying cmi but not addressed how I'm paying the arrears ..I have a court order in palace to pay the cmi + 200 extra they know this . However they still threatening me with eviction . And demanding more income and expenditure so I will send that in to them and see where we go as they will probably demand more again .as the income is now higher . But they are only having the extra £200 as inline with the court order . Regards Markez  
    • do you not still have your ID card etc etc. if its whom I think it is and you are thinking of switching 'sides' shall we say .....you are not alone!!   dx
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 3 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
caro

Penalties for not paying by direct debit

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1619 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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????

 

:) :)


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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


If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :confused:

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.


HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...