|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phones in Great Britain > March 2007 > Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints
|
|
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-15, 4:33 am |
| 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_an... />
tters.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_an... />
tters.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...
>
> 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.
| |
| Simon Dobson 2007-03-15, 4:33 am |
| 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'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$$$$
| |
| Lez Pawl 2007-03-15, 4:33 am |
|
"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...
>
> 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.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-15, 4:33 am |
| 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_an... />
tters.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!
| |
|
| 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.
I don't pay DD and my bill is going up by £ 1.50
Why should I pay for your discount ?
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-15, 7:33 am |
| 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
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-15, 7:33 am |
| 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 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!
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-15, 7:33 am |
| 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
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-15, 3:33 pm |
|
"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:bxE$WFzJoR+FFwO
s@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <55sh96F26c6eaU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
> 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.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-15, 3:33 pm |
| 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!
| |
| Bob Eager 2007-03-15, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:49:17 UTC, "Roger Mills"
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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!
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-15, 3:33 pm |
| 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
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
| 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!
| |
| Stephen Wray 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
|
"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Vwnsmh8FfT+FFwO
l@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <55smleF25vdofU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>
> You shouldn't.
>
>
> 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
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-15, 10:33 pm |
| 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+FFwO
l@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
>
> 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'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
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-16, 4:33 am |
|
>
> 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.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 4:33 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> 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!
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
|
>
> 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/SaverP...px?source=saver then
when my line rental is a fixed amount I may go direct debit.
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
| In message < TbydnUr4R_MbLWTYRVny
gAA@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
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
| 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:
>
>
>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
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
| 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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
| 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!
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 7:33 am |
| 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
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| 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:
>
>
>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
| |
| Frogman 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| on 16/03/2007, Paul Harris supposed :
> I know and alternatively I could move away from BT altogether but that isn't
> really the point.
And from the 01/05/2007 BT will charge £5:00 to all customers who cease
service with them
--
Regards,
Frogman, http://www.frogman.org.uk for free downloads and more...
In God we trust, ALL others pay Cash.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| "It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:45fa68dc$0$3202
6$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
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| "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
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> 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
It is not reasonable to compare this with penalty charges imposed by banks.
These bank charges are imposed because you have failed to comply with the
terms and conditions with which you have previously agreed - such as
exceeding your overdraft limit or failing to pay your credit card bill on
time. In a lot of cases, your failure could be purely accidental.
In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one price if you pay by DD, a
higher price if you don't. You choose. It's not something imposed after the
event because you failed to comply with T&Cs.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
> I would agree.
>
> All agreed.
>
>
> 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.
> Probably and I would assume they worked out what the maximum that they
> thought they could get away with was.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
--
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!
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vnalF26vhotU1
@mid.individual.net
[snip]
> In the case of BT, the charges are up front - one price
> if you pay by DD, a higher price if you don't. You
> choose.
You may not be able to choose.
> It's not something imposed after the event
> because you failed to comply with T&Cs.
It's still unfair. Many people have a genuine reason for not wanting to
pay by DD. Some people (Shock..! Horror..!) don't even have a bank
account, so *can't* pay by DD. Why should someone be forced to pay extra
because they choose not to open a bank account..? You will never convince
me it costs more to pay by cash at the post office, the end result is the
same, they get their money on time.
Ivor
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Sorry about the previous (non) post - pressed the wrong button!
> In message <55vcorF265d4fU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
> I would agree.
>
That's not what you said earlier!
> All agreed.
>
Good!
>
> 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.
A rose by any other name . . ?
> Probably and I would assume they worked out what the maximum that they
> thought they could get away with was.
>
> 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.
>
If that was my total quarterly bill, I'd be delirious! If they increased my
quarterly rental from £33 to £43, of course I wouldn't be very happy.
Whether they called it charge for using DD or called it part of the rental
would make no difference - what matters is what I actually *pay*, not how
it's described.
> 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.
As discussed earlier, unless explicitly forbidden by the regulator - or by
the law generally - they can charge what they like, or what they think they
can get away with. I've no idea whether they're making extra profit out of
non-DD payers or not. Have you? In order to give a definitive answer, you'd
need to estimate the benefit to the business of all the factors I listed
earlier - plus any others I missed. For example, how much is the reduction
in churn worth to BT?
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net / LxaFmG1vUztUOleJLkUx
QIJ/Uv/ APcigU3lrSPxhndM2vIv
aE
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.telecom:402216 uk.telecom.mobile:652012
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vnalF26vhotU1
@mid.individual.net
>
> [snip]
>
>
> You may not be able to choose.
>
>
> It's still unfair. Many people have a genuine reason for not wanting
> to pay by DD. Some people (Shock..! Horror..!) don't even have a bank
> account, so *can't* pay by DD. Why should someone be forced to pay
> extra because they choose not to open a bank account..? You will
> never convince me it costs more to pay by cash at the post office,
> the end result is the same, they get their money on time.
>
> Ivor
There can't be many people without a bank account of some sort now that all
state benefits have to be paid into an account.
I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be from people who are
unable to organise their finances in a way which ensures that there is money
available in their account to pay the DD. If this is the case, many of these
people won't be able to pay their bill on time by *any* means. At the risk
of getting my head chopped off, I would venture to suggest that BT probably
doesn't want to keep these people as customers.
Whatever you may think about the merits of privatisation, you have to accept
that BT is now a commercial outfit - with shareholders - *not* a public
service.
--
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!
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vp3lF26pf24U1
@mid.individual.net
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> There can't be many people without a bank account of some
> sort now that all state benefits have to be paid into an
> account.
Maybe so, but someone should still be able to choose how they pay a bill
without penalty. As long as the bill is paid on time, there should be no
difference.
> I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be
> from people who are unable to organise their finances in
> a way which ensures that there is money available in
> their account to pay the DD.
You can suggest it, but some people simply prefer to deal in cash.
> If this is the case, many of
> these people won't be able to pay their bill on time by
> *any* means. At the risk of getting my head chopped off,
> I would venture to suggest that BT probably doesn't want
> to keep these people as customers.
> Whatever you may think about the merits of privatisation,
> you have to accept that BT is now a commercial outfit -
> with shareholders - *not* a public service.
That's the problem, the purpose of a company should be to serve its
customers. Profit is not a dirty word, but it should not come before
service.
Ivor
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In message <55vobaF2770jfU1@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:
[color=darkred]
>That's not what you said earlier!
>
I believe that it was a decision in which BT decided how much they think
that they can get away with and such business decision will inevitably
involve a marketing decision. I don't accept that it was a fair
decision to charge more than what it costs them which is why I object to
the decision to impose a penalty charge.
>If that was my total quarterly bill, I'd be delirious! If they increased my
>quarterly rental from £33 to £43, of course I wouldn't be very happy.
>Whether they called it charge for using DD or called it part of the rental
>would make no difference - what matters is what I actually *pay*, not how
>it's described.
>
I take your point about the total sum being the important factor but it
is important how it is arrived at. Some people do not have the option
of paying by DD or choose not to pay that way and are going to be
penalised because BT have decided that they will charge them more. It
doesn't bother you because you pay by DD but some of those who can't may
already be struggling to pay as it is and imposing penalty charges is
unfair.
>
>As discussed earlier, unless explicitly forbidden by the regulator - or by
>the law generally - they can charge what they like, or what they think they
>can get away with. I've no idea whether they're making extra profit out of
>non-DD payers or not. Have you?
According to what I have read they will make quite a considerable extra
profit from the charge at that level. The cost is probably less than a
pound and most likely nearer to 50p so that is potentially an extra
sixteen pounds per annum from every customer who does not pay by DD.
>In order to give a definitive answer, you'd
>need to estimate the benefit to the business of all the factors I listed
>earlier - plus any others I missed. For example, how much is the reduction
>in churn worth to BT?
These factors should be built into the pricing structure not added on as
a penalty charge. As a matter of principle I have written to BT so it
will interesting to see what the response is.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> That's the problem, the purpose of a company should be to serve its
> customers. Profit is not a dirty word, but it should not come before
> service.
>
I wish that were true! In reality, companies serve the *shareholders* - and
try to keep enough of the customers happy enough of the time to be able to
turn in a healthy profit. They ain't going to do anything for the benefit of
the customer unless it's also for the benefit of the bottom line.
I, for one, regret how far we've gone down the capitalist route - but it's
unfortunately a fact of life.
--
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!
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:55vcorF265d4fU1
@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
> 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
They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.
If they wanted people to move to direct debit why not give a huge discount
(that's discount not a charge) to those who pay using DD.
I am sure many more would move to that payment method then.
Those that still pay by other methods have long resisted the discount offer
so do you really think it will make much of an impact on them unless they
give say a 50% reduction or more.
BT seem to like make their customers angry, even those who pay every bill on
time.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
> These factors should be built into the pricing structure not added on
> as a penalty charge. As a matter of principle I have written to BT
> so it will interesting to see what the response is.
Why? If you can quantify the effect of customer behaviour on your
profitability, what's wrong with differentiating? You'll be telling me next
that insurance companies should charge everyone the same for a given class
of insurance regardless of individual risk.
There are often valid reasons for charging different customers different
prices for what is essentially the same service.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> They used to give a discount now they don't, they now apply a charge.
>
This is getting to be a bit like a gramophone record! Regardless of what
they *call* it, it's the *same* thing. Those who pay by DD pay less than
those who don't.
Which part of that don't you understand?
--
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!
| |
| Malcolm Lee 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| Roger Mills wrote:
> [snip]
> I would suggest that the main aversion to DDs would be from people who are
> unable to organise their finances in a way which ensures that there is money
> available in their account to pay the DD.
Rubbish. There are millions of people who object to anyone apart from
themselves having *any* sort of control over their own bank account.
And I "would suggest" that they have rather more intelligence than those
who implicitly trust any commercial organisation to have such control.
Malcolm
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 12:33 pm |
| In message <55vslcF274b6kU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>Why? If you can quantify the effect of customer behaviour on your
>profitability, what's wrong with differentiating? You'll be telling me next
>that insurance companies should charge everyone the same for a given class
>of insurance regardless of individual risk.
>
Not at all that isn't what is happening as the charge is nothing to do
with the service that is being provided that charge relates only to the
way in which the bill is paid.
>There are often valid reasons for charging different customers different
>prices for what is essentially the same service.
They are charging everyone the same price for the same service according
to the published pricing structure so we are all equal (I think). The
objection is because they are now charging an additional sum, which
exceeds any respective cost, which is based on someone's preferred
method of payment. If you offer to pay the bill then I don't see why
you should be charged extra just because BT would rather you did so by
DD.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| underprocessable | |
| David Taylor 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-03-16, It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vsvrF26m5qhU1
@mid.individual.net...
>
> I never changed the wording BT did.
>
> dis·count (dskount, ds-kount)
> v. dis·count·ed, dis·count·ing, dis·counts
> v.tr.
> 1. To deduct or subtract from a cost or price.
& #91;snip]
> charge (chärj)
> v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
> v.tr.
> 2. To set or ask (a given amount) as a price: charges ten dollars for a
> haircut.
> 16. To direct or put (a weapon) into position for use; level.
> 17. Heraldry To place a charge on (an escutcheon).
>
> Do you work for BT?
>
> Maybe an indian call centre! as you dont seem to understand English.
>
> A charge is not the same as a discount.
A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
--
David Taylor
| |
| Malcolm Lee 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| David Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
>
> A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
> as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
>
> It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
>
The point is that if fees are regulated then a company
that removes a "discount" for a certain group of people and
replaces it with a "charge" on the non-discount people
effectively enables said company to evade regulation of its
fees and charge more to everyone than they otherwise would
have been allowed to do.
Malcolm
| |
| Stephen Wray 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
|
"Frogman" <uk_frogman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:mn.82fc7d739c2e6d0c.60348@frogman.org.uk...
> on 16/03/2007, Paul Harris supposed :
>
> And from the 01/05/2007 BT will charge £5:00 to all customers who cease
> service with them
>
Thats now been withdrawn and removed from the May update website
Stephen
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> If you offer to pay the bill then I
> don't see why you should be charged extra just because BT would
> rather you did so by DD.
Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm not
aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.
If that were to happen, I firmly believe it would be to the detriment of DD
payers not to the benefit of non-DD payers - except for giving them the
dubious satisfaction of knowing that we were paying the same as them. It's
probably worse than that! If BT *is* forced to remove the differential,
there is the prospect that a lot of current DD payers will opt out, thus
increasing BT's costs - which will be passed on as still further price
increases.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Malcolm Lee <news@malREMlee45.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> Roger Mills wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish. There are millions of people who object to anyone apart from
> themselves having *any* sort of control over their own bank account.
> And I "would suggest" that they have rather more intelligence than
> those who implicitly trust any commercial organisation to have such
> control.
> Malcolm
I'm with you *part* of the way on that. For a long time, I resisted using
DDs - prefering Standing Orders so that *I* was in control of what went out.
However, I finally succumbed - some years ago now - and have only once in
all that time had to invoke the Direct Debit Guarantee to get an erroneous
charge refunded. With on-line access to one's bank account, you can keep a
close eye on it and very quickly detect any erroneous charges - thus largely
mitigating the effect of having "implicit trust in commercial
organisations".
Once you get used to the concept, it saves a hell of a lot of hassle. For
example, my credit card bills are paid off in full every month without my
having to do anything except for ensuring that there is enough money in the
account. If you want to ensure that your bills are paid without having to
remember to pay each one manually, DD is actually the more intelligent
option.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <spam@spam.spam> wrote:
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:55vsvrF26m5qhU1
@mid.individual.net...
>
> I never changed the wording BT did.
>
> dis·count (dskount, ds-kount)
>
> charge (chärj)
>
You can quote dictionary definitions until you are blue in the face, but it
doesn't change the reality. I say again (ad nauseam!) "Those who pay by DD
pay less than those who don't". It matters not whether you - or BT - call it
a discount or a charge.
> Do you work for BT?
>
Absolutely not! I made my attitude towards BT perfectly clear in an earlier
post.
> Maybe an indian call centre! as you dont seem to understand English.
>
I understand English perfectly. What's more, I understand the underlying
meaning of what is being discussed rather than relying on semantics.
> A charge is not the same as a discount.
In absolute terms that is true. But in the context of this particular
discussion, there is an equivalence. Whether DD payers pay less due to a
discount or non-DD payers pay more because of a charge, the *effect* is
exactly the same.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Stephen Wray < stephen_wray@hotmail
.com> wrote:
> "Frogman" <uk_frogman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:mn.82fc7d739c2e6d0c.60348@frogman.org.uk...
> Thats now been withdrawn and removed from the May update website
>
> Stephen
Do you have a link to the May update website?
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Malcolm Lee <news@malREMlee45.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> David Taylor wrote:
>
> The point is that if fees are regulated then a company
> that removes a "discount" for a certain group of people and
> replaces it with a "charge" on the non-discount people
> effectively enables said company to evade regulation of its
> fees and charge more to everyone than they otherwise would
> have been allowed to do.
>
> Malcolm
You might have a point there - since the alternative would have been to put
the standard price *up* ( which they would have to get past the regulator)
but then increase the DD discount.
--
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!
| |
|
| spam@spam.spam declared for all the world to hear...
> The main point is, it does not cost them £4.50.
How do you know? Are you intimately familiar with their internal
systems?
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| Stephen Wray 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5609j2F25onhuU1
@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Stephen Wray < stephen_wray@hotmail
.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do you have a link to the May update website?
See http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretai...e/informed.html
Stephen
| |
| Stephen Wray 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5607ubF26onvnU1
@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm
> not aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.
>
> If that were to happen, I firmly believe it would be to the detriment of
> DD payers not to the benefit of non-DD payers - except for giving them the
> dubious satisfaction of knowing that we were paying the same as them. It's
> probably worse than that! If BT *is* forced to remove the differential,
> there is the prospect that a lot of current DD payers will opt out, thus
> increasing BT's costs - which will be passed on as still further price
> increases.
I think that BT has done it this way so that it's base line rental is lower,
for advertising reasons when used by OLO, so they have to compare their
price with £11 rather than £12.50
Stephen
| |
| Usenet User 2007-03-16, 3:33 pm |
| On Mar 15, 12:10 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> 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 =A34.50 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
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.
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <MPG. 206507962d65a1c998a8
1e@text.usenet.plus.net>, Jon
<spam@jonparker.plus.com> writes
>spam@spam.spam declared for all the world to hear...
>
>How do you know? Are you intimately familiar with their internal
>systems?
One doesn't need to be, it is relatively simple to take a good guess.
If you pay monthly the additional charge is £1.50 but if you pay
quarterly it is £4.50 (I wonder how they arrived at those figures). So
if it costs them £4.50 to process the transaction they are making a loss
on every monthly payer but if it cost costs £1.50 they are ripping off
the quarterly payers.
The actual transaction cost is probably around 50p or say a maximum of
£1.00 so on a quarterly bill they make an extra £3.50 to £4.00 on each
and every bill.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <5607ubF26onvnU1@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:
>
>
>Actually, I agree with you. It's just that BT define the rules, and I'm not
>aware of any basis in law for forcing them to do otherwise.
>
I understand that trading standards are going to look at the charge
because BT say the charge is a legitimate one for administration. My
contention is that I don't believe that it really costs them £4.50 to
process a cheque or receive cash. I know that Banks like to charge but
I can't see that they would get away with charging BT that much per
transaction which means simply that BT are most probably using this as
an excuse to get an additional revenue stream.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <slrnevlolq.1lk3.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk>, David
Taylor <davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> writes
>A charge applied to all people not paying by DD _is_ the same
>as a discount applied only to those people paying by DD.
>
>It doesn't matter who calls it what -- it's both.
>
You are right when it comes to the bottom line but now consider why BT
decided to call it a charge (which they should have guessed would be
unpopular) rather than giving a discount. They could easily have given
a discount to those who paid by DD, they did that before but they have
chosen instead to make an additional charge to all those who do not pay
by DD. Wouldn't possibly be a way of making the price look cheaper
would it?
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <1174075396.863374.207860@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Usenet User <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On Mar 15, 12:10 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>These charges are lawful.
I am not certain that you are right so I hope you won't mind my asking
by what authority you state that as fact?
>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.
>
But this isn't about differential pricing of the goods or service as the
price of those is the same for all. This is a differential charge based
on the preferred method of payment for the services which, although I am
not a Lawyer, I believe to be totally different.
--
Paul Harris
| |
|
| On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:47:20 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
> I understand that trading standards are going to look at the charge
> because BT say the charge is a legitimate one for administration. My
> contention is that I don't believe that it really costs them £4.50 to
What on earth has it got to do with Trading Standards?
The fact is that it costs more to deal with certain customer groups than
others. Accepting payment by cheque costs a great deal more in
administration than accepting payment by Direct Debit.
Quite apart from the handling costs there's also the fact that people who
pay by cheque are more likely to pay late or simply forget to pay. Thus
adding to the overhead.
--
Marc Cornelius
| |
|
| On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:52:31 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
& #91;snip]
> by DD. Wouldn't possibly be a way of making the price look cheaper
> would it?
[snip]
Of course it is. I think there are two things here:
1. Being able to quote a lower headline rental.
2. Often an increase in price is pyschologically more motivating than a
discount. In other words people are more inclined to do something to avoid
a price increase than they are to obtain a discount. I think this affect
has been amply demonstrated by the reaction of the press and members of
this newsgroup.
--
Marc Cornelius
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <1174075396.863374.207860@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Usenet User <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> I am not certain that you are right so I hope you won't mind my asking
> by what authority you state that as fact?
>
> But this isn't about differential pricing of the goods or service as
> the price of those is the same for all. This is a differential
> charge based on the preferred method of payment for the services
> which, although I am not a Lawyer, I believe to be totally different.
I assume that what is being quoted is the ability of firms to surcharge
customers who pay by credit card. *That* is certainly lawful. What BT is
doing could be considered to be equivalent to that, and may well be covered
by the same law.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <MPG. 206507962d65a1c998a8
1e@text.usenet.plus.net>, Jon
> <spam@jonparker.plus.com> writes
>
> One doesn't need to be, it is relatively simple to take a good guess.
>
> If you pay monthly the additional charge is £1.50 but if you pay
> quarterly it is £4.50 (I wonder how they arrived at those figures). So if
> it costs them £4.50 to process the transaction they are making
> a loss on every monthly payer but if it cost costs £1.50 they are
> ripping off the quarterly payers.
>
> The actual transaction cost is probably around 50p or say a maximum of
> £1.00 so on a quarterly bill they make an extra £3.50 to £4.00 on each
> and every bill.
But you're still getting hung up with the cost of the *transaction* rather
than the preceived *value* to BT of having their customers pay by DD.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <slrnevlolq.1lk3.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk>, David
> Taylor <davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> writes
>
> You are right when it comes to the bottom line but now consider why BT
> decided to call it a charge (which they should have guessed would be
> unpopular) rather than giving a discount. They could easily have
> given a discount to those who paid by DD, they did that before but
> they have chosen instead to make an additional charge to all those
> who do not pay by DD. Wouldn't possibly be a way of making the price
> look cheaper would it?
Very probably. But, judging by the prevalence of this technique in business
generally, I doubt whether it's illegal.
--
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!
| |
| David Horne, _the_ chancellor 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
> spam@spam.spam declared for all the world to hear...
>
> How do you know?
You seriously disagree, or you're just arguing for the sake of it?
> Are you intimately familiar with their internal
> systems?
If it costs them that much, then they are extraordinarily ineffecient,
even by their standards. I find it more plausible that they are just
being greedy.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
| |
| David Horne, _the_ chancellor 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <5607ubF26onvnU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
> I understand that trading standards are going to look at the charge
> because BT say the charge is a legitimate one for administration. My
> contention is that I don't believe that it really costs them £4.50 to
> process a cheque or receive cash.
Nor do I, and saying a charge is legitimate is very vague anyway. It's
like using the term 'reasonable.'
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <560g8cF26tsn6U1@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:
>
>But you're still getting hung up with the cost of the *transaction* rather
>than the preceived *value* to BT of having their customers pay by DD.
It is not just me, BT stated that the charge is legitimate as it is to
cover the additional cost of administration which I read as being to
cover the cost of the transaction. They didn't say this is a penalty to
make up what we consider to be the perceived value.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <2zj0r7n1sa0n.1osyql1ey3tcz.dlg@40tude.net>, Marc
<marc.p. cornelius@googlemail
.com> writes
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:47:20 +0000, Paul Harris wrote:
>
>
>What on earth has it got to do with Trading Standards?
>
Don't ask me, ask them. I would go for misrepresentation if was in
their position as the charge is being presented as being for additional
administrative expenses and I would ask that they justify it on those
grounds.
>The fact is that it costs more to deal with certain customer groups than
>others. Accepting payment by cheque costs a great deal more in
>administration than accepting payment by Direct Debit.
>
There is no reason that it should cost a great deal more, I agree that
it will probably cost more but not a great deal more and certainly not
as much as £4.50 per transaction.
>Quite apart from the handling costs there's also the fact that people who
>pay by cheque are more likely to pay late or simply forget to pay. Thus
>adding to the overhead.
>
They also have a separate penalty charge (which has just been raised to
£7.50) for late payment so that does not wash.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <560ggmF2779lkU1@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:
>
>Very probably. But, judging by the prevalence of this technique in business
>generally, I doubt whether it's illegal.
If they can demonstrate that the sum reflects the cost of processing
then I believe they would have a god case but if it is in excess of the
real cost then I believe that it could be tested. We will never know
how the Law will look at it until it is tested.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| Paul Harris 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| In message <560g3rF26p1etU1@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:
>
>
>I assume that what is being quoted is the ability of firms to surcharge
>customers who pay by credit card. *That* is certainly lawful.
If the surcharge relates directly to an additional cost that they have
to bear when processing the transaction then as I understand it they may
pass such cost on to the customer. That is what happens with Credit
Card payments in some cases but this I believe is different as it is my
belief the sum being charged to the customer is greater than the
additional cost of the transaction.
--
Paul Harris
| |
| usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk 2007-03-16, 10:33 pm |
| On Mar 16, 8:58 pm, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In message <1174075396.863374.207...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Usenet User <usenetu...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
ge[color=darkred]
>
>
> I am not certain that you are right so I hope you won't mind my asking
> by what authority you state that as fact?
The Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
Watchdog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_an...ervices/servic=
es_20070314.shtml
>
>
> But this isn't about differential pricing of the goods or service as the
> price of those is the same for all. This is a differential charge based
> on the preferred method of payment for the services which, although I am
> not a Lawyer, I believe to be totally different.
> --
> Paul Harris
Again, the lgeal position that this is LEGAL comes from Trading
Standards themselves.
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
|
> 2. Often an increase in price is pyschologically more motivating than a
> discount. In other words people are more inclined to do something to avoid
> a price increase than they are to obtain a discount. I think this affect
> has been amply demonstrated by the reaction of the press and members of
> this newsgroup.
>
> --
> Marc Cornelius
Yea I am looking at switching to direct debit but only if its a fixed amount
and not varible, BT may keep my custom but only the line rental and I will
redirect all calls to another provider..
So who loses.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>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.
I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in cost for a
Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect was that it does NOT
cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each quarter than each month.
It is likely to have exactly the same cost to them for manual handling, so
1.50 might be the cost for handling by other than DD but is not reasonable
for a transaction once every 3 months to cost treble that fee.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| On 16 Mar 2007, "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>If I choose to pay in cash at the post office or my bank counter,
>that's up to me.
and if they choose to give a discount to someone for paying by DD, that's
up to them, however much you disaprove them having that choice!
You have to accept that there are two sides to each case - you have argued
previously that you don't accept calls with the number withheld, yet expect
others to accept such calls from you. Seems the sort of " don't do as I do,
do as I tell you " line which others might choose not to agree with!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> If the surcharge relates directly to an additional cost that they have
> to bear when processing the transaction then as I understand it they
> may pass such cost on to the customer. That is what happens with
> Credit Card payments in some cases but this I believe is different as
> it is my belief the sum being charged to the customer is greater than
> the additional cost of the transaction.
I'm not sure that a credit card surcharge *does* have to reflect the actual
cost incurred by the retailer. Can you quote chapter and verse to support
your assertion?
--
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!
| |
| It's Me 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
|
"NoNeedToKnow" <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:6tbnv290bslnquf
3kmloj7sdba8b826bok@
complete-pc-services.info...
> On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in cost for
> a
> Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect was that it does
> NOT
> cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each quarter than each month.
>
> It is likely to have exactly the same cost to them for manual handling, so
> 1.50 might be the cost for handling by other than DD but is not reasonable
> for a transaction once every 3 months to cost treble that fee.
Thats what I have been saying.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The Trading Standards Institute state this in a statement to BBC
> Watchdog.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_an..._20070314.shtml
>
That makes very interesting reading!
Trading Standards seem to be running with the hare and hunting with the
hounds! On the one hand, they are objecting to non-DD surcharges as unfair
and disadvantaging certain sections of society - and on the the other hand
they go to great lengths to explain that these charges are lawful, as long
as information is provided to consumers in the right form.
Either way, little will happen unless the law is changed - or unless
sufficient BT customers vote with their feet, but that seems less likely
than Lloyds TSB's recent episode over foreign call centres.
--
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!
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
NoNeedToKnow <me@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2007, "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think you're missing his point. While there's a difference in
> cost for a Direct Debit vs other form of payment, I think an aspect
> was that it does NOT cost BT 3 times the amount to collect a fee each
> quarter than each month.
>
No, I think *you're* missing the point! I agree that the differential is
probably higher than the direct difference in cost to BT. But I'm not aware
of any basis in law which says that the differential *has* to reflect the
cost. If BT feels that this size of incentive is required to persuade enough
people to use DD, there's nothing stopping them from imposing it - however
unfair and unreasonable this may seem to some people.
--
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!
| |
| brightside S9 2007-03-17, 7:33 am |
| On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:49:12 -0000, "Roger Mills"
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:
>There can't be many people without a bank account of some sort now that all
>state benefits have to be paid into an account.
>
The problem here is that those without bank accounts who received
state benefits via cash at the post office were encouraged to open a
Post Office Card account. This allows cash to be drawn from the Post
Office but does not allow DDs.
According to | | |