Help Me Please Overcharged On Debit Card

exel1966

NickX wrote: »

OK well it depends how you are defining a con. Does a practice actually have to be against the law to actually be a con ?

I would probably call hiding specific conditions that go in the Company's favour in smallprint as a con aswell.

Remember that these big organisations have access to a multitude of legal and marketing advisors that the customer does not. It does seem somewhat unfair to expect customers who haven't got such experience to understand every single line of the small print.

I certainly would call a clause that allows an admin fee for processing a card transaction to be duplicated across the number of individual flights and the number passengers concerned as a "con".

Yes, to me (and I believe ?, the law) it does have to illegal to be a con and this clearly isn't illegal. I believe because of what can be included in T&C's/smallprint the general public do need to make themselves more astute in just what they are letting themselves in for when signing agreements and entering into contracts. Responsibility works both ways and pleading ignorance after the event doesn't usually stand up in court.

I've been careful not to use use the word 'hidden' when referring to smallprint as to be hidden the consumer wouldn't know, but he/she does know, if only they took the time to look. Obviously understanding 'legal' terminology is admitedley difficult, but it still shouldn't be ignored.

NZ - interesting example - Could that possibly be classed as discrimination ?

NickX

exel1966 wrote: »

Yes, to me (and I believe ?, the law) it does have to illegal to be a con

Dictionary Definition of "con" :

"to swindle (a victim) by first gaining the person's confidence"

"to trick or fool, esp. by glib persuasion"


No mention of legality here

I think Ryanair's tactics fall into exactly the above categories. They gain the person's confidence with the extremely low headline fair.

The issue I have is that, just like the unfair Bank Charges, these fees should be proportionate to the level of admin involved, and by duplicating this charge in this way, they are clearly not. I think this could be challenged in the future.

exel1966

NickX wrote: »

Dictionary Definition of "con" :

"to swindle (a victim) by first gaining the person's confidence"

"to trick or fool, esp. by glib persuasion"


No mention of legality here

I think Ryanair's tactics fall into exactly the above categories. They gain the person's confidence with the extremely low headline fair.

The issue I have is that, just like the unfair Bank Charges, these fees should be proportionate to the level of admin involved, and by duplicating this charge in this way, they are clearly not. I think this could be challenged in the future.

Personally I wouldn't expect to find a legality definition in a dictionary so don't read anything into that, but for clarity ;-

To con someone is to deceive or take advantage of a person through fraud or trickery after winning the person's confidence.

No deceptions have taken place nor has any trickery or fraud. I do agree, as I posted earlier that costs should be proportionate and like you think a time will come when it is challenged, but until that time comes we all have to accept what they charge whether it's liked or not.

NickX

exel1966 wrote: »

No deceptions have taken place nor has any trickery or fraud.

Hmmm no fraud has taken place, but trickery

I'd say its a sneaky trick.

But we are getting to hung up on the specific words to describe what Ryanair is doing.

We know the facts, and that at present it is legal. Lets just hope that it is challenged soon, however this will not make them any cheaper, it will just make their pricing policy more transparent.

peggydoodaa

Yes the charge is high, but if you factor it in when you're searching for prices of these flights and Ryanair still comes up cheapest then surely it's still worth it. For example, I've recently booked two return flights to Dublin for the grand total of £32. It would cost me that for a taxi back from our local town after a night out!

NickX

peggydoodaa wrote: »

For example, I've recently booked two return flights to Dublin for the grand total of £32.

I wouldn't dispute that they are cheap.

However, they are not always the cheapest, and it is their policy on Debit\Credit card charges that is causing the ill feeling on this thread.

JimmyTheWig

exel1966 wrote: »

I agree, very clever marketing, but a con, no.

I think we're getting slightly bogged down in language here, but I would include it in a con.
If a supermarket advertised "free sausages" in big signs in the window then when you got to the sausage section you found they were talking about a pack with 25% extra free I would consider that to be a con, also. Yes, they are "giving away" two free sausages, but you have to spend more than the advert in the window implied you had to spend.
They may well still be the cheapest sausages in town. You may well still buy them. But they got you into that shop with trickery. That, to me, is a con.

what about the smallprint in contracts which can include a multitude of items which many would deem unfair. Are those a con ?

If the clause is in no way to be expected, and particularly if it contradicts what has been said in non-small print (e.g. get a flight for £1 but in the small print it says there are more charges to be paid to get the flight) then I agree this is a con.

nzseries1 wrote: »

They charge an "airport-check in fee", however there is no way for me to avoid this fee

For us, too. Our reason is that we have kids. Surely that's more common for someone booking a flight than not being from the EU. (And I think this, as it is a common occurence, should be mentioned in the MSE Ryan Air article, but it's not.)


Thinking about it now, maybe they should have to publish their "typical" prices, like companies have to publish "typical APRs". Fair enough you can get out of paying the debit card fee by using Electron, but how many people do this? Less than half, I guess, so the typical price should include the fee.

moonrakerz

Richard019 wrote: »

I think all the companies should be forced to display exactly what they're charging people for, with their costs having to be displayed as they are. That way you can see that your BA ticket from Heathrow that costs £10 extra compared to an Easyjet one from Stansted should only cost £8 more, but BA are pocketing an extra £2 and blaming it on the airport charges.

.

If you book a ticket on the BA website it comes up with a total price including taxes charges, etc, etc etc - any fuel surcharge is in that price, what you see is what you pay.

Book on a budget airline you get a ticket price, then somewhere else you gets taxes, then somewhere else you get a security charge, then somewhere else you get a booking fee, then somewhere else you get a baggage fee, then somewhere else you get a check-in fee, then somewhere else you get a seat selection fee, then somewhere else you get a cup of tea fee, then somewhere else you get an insurance fee, then somewhere else ...............................it's a wonder they don't have coin in the slot WCs on their aircraft (oops! perhaps I shouldn't have said that !)

but as that nice Mr O'Leary says, "No fuel surcharges on Ryanair" !

_Andy_

Not another Ryanair thread, for the love of God.

exel1966

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I think we're getting slightly bogged down in language here, but I would include it in a con.
If a supermarket advertised "free sausages" in big signs in the window then when you got to the sausage section you found they were talking about a pack with 25% extra free I would consider that to be a con, also. Yes, they are "giving away" two free sausages, but you have to spend more than the advert in the window implied you had to spend.
They may well still be the cheapest sausages in town. You may well still buy them. But they got you into that shop with trickery. That, to me, is a con.


If the clause is in no way to be expected, and particularly if it contradicts what has been said in non-small print (e.g. get a flight for £1 but in the small print it says there are more charges to be paid to get the flight) then I agree this is a con.


For us, too. Our reason is that we have kids. Surely that's more common for someone booking a flight than not being from the EU. (And I think this, as it is a common occurence, should be mentioned in the MSE Ryan Air article, but it's not.)


Thinking about it now, maybe they should have to publish their "typical" prices, like companies have to publish "typical APRs". Fair enough you can get out of paying the debit card fee by using Electron, but how many people do this? Less than half, I guess, so the typical price should include the fee.

No getting bogged down in language at all. You believe it's a con, I don't. plain and simple really.

The supermarket offer would probably indicate * inviting the consumer to read the T&C's just as Ryanair and all offers do but if you chose to ignore the terms then that I'm afraid that is your own fault. In your example, no deception would occur, no fraud would occur therefore legally as per the legal definaition I posted earlier it's not a con.
Businesses just wouldn't be liecenced and able to operate if they were acting unlawfully as you suggest.

You mention about not many people having/getting electron cards. Is that Ryanairs' fault ? No, the public have a choice, just as they do when they decide to pay the debit card charge and accept the terms.