Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

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_and..._letters.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

---

› See More: Form letter for direct debit surcharge complaints

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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_and..._letters.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:[email protected]...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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_and..._letters.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.

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.

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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!

X so many thousands = million$$$$

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <[email protected]> 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_and..._letters.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!

In message <[email protected]>, Roger Mills
<[email protected]> 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

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
milou <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:17:24 -0000, "Roger Mills"
> <[email protected]> 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.
>

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!

In message <[email protected]>, Roger Mills
<[email protected]> 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

"Paul Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Roger Mills
> <[email protected]> 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

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.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
It's Me <[email protected]> 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!

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:49:17 UTC, "Roger Mills"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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

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!

In message <[email protected]>, Roger Mills
<[email protected]> 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

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Paul Harris <[email protected]> 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!

"Paul Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Roger Mills
> <[email protected]> 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.

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