Companys Charging For None Direct Debt ?

cozza

I am just so peed off :mad: with these companys that charge you for invoices coz you dont have direct debt :mad: .
I just rang sky to pay my bill coz i couldnt afford it before as being on job seekers . so i called them to pay my bill by my debit card ok . then the girl says do u want it put back on i said yes as i know were my money is now .
she said will i set direct debt up i said no as im on job seekers and get paid every 2 weeks but cannot do that as you need a certain dates to take it (ie. 7th of the month ) and if there is 5 weeks in a month it will throw the payments out so she said i can send you an invoice every month which will cost £3.59 extra :eek: . I said no way thats discrimanating me coz i dont have direct debit i dont mind phoning every month to pay over the phone but no i cannot do that .


so in the end i said il just pay my bill and dont reinstall it .
It just makes me sick that these comapanys discrimant ppl just for not doing direct debt

Halloway

On the other hand, those of us that do use DD and electronic payment methods benefit from the lower costs that these payment methods incur.

cozza

yes but there is some ppl that cannot have bank accounts for one reason or another i am quite happy at phoning every month so they can take it off my card as i am bankrupt i do not want to start getting in debt not having the money in there as 9/10 the jobseekers dont pay on time sometimes so which will get me in debt

hawkwinddotcom

Do you need Sky when on JSA?
If I was bankrupt I wouldnt be paying for Sky.

cozza

if you read my thread you will see i did put it back on i just payed my bill but it makes me sick when ppl judge you for having a few things ? and i was saying its not only sky its most places as well

Tiggergirl

Non-DD payments are more labour intensive and therefore cost more. DD is just set up the once on their system then payment collection is pretty much automated from then on. If you are ringing up to pay them once a month then there is a labour cost of getting someone to put the payment through and the bank cost of processing a debit card payment. If they are posting out an invoice there is also a postage cost involved.

There is also the risk of your late payment or non-payment. It costs money to send out reminders and to chase up money owed.

mazza111

Dunno if this is true or not, but when i worked for a well known company who has the same policy, they told us that they get charged for the gyrobank slips at the bottom of the bill too. Another cost that's avoided by DD. However I do think in excess of £3 is rather an expensive bill to be sent out.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

So the OP is a bankrupt on JSA who can't afford sky yet still has it and gets round non payment by not having a DD.

Part of the £3 will be for the cost of chasing people just like him

DON79

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Pretty much

why should the taxpayer pay for your sky which is unncessary and luxury?

and how exactly is the taxpayer paying for cozza's Sky?? and cozza has just said that they do not have sky now so that argument is just irrelevent.

as for being unnecessary and a luxury - it may not be unnecessary because cozza could well have had sky talk which provides her phoneline when it may cost £100+ to reconnect to BT if she has no BT line.

TV is hardly a luxury - and if she does not go out and does not go drinking, then exactly where is the harm in having a small tv package for entertainment? it is much better than blowing £60/£100 out drinking and having a meal in one evening!

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

DON79 wrote: »

and how exactly is the taxpayer paying for cozza's Sky?? and cozza has just said that they do not have sky now so that argument is just irrelevent.

as for being unnecessary and a luxury - it may not be unnecessary because cozza could well have had sky talk which provides her phoneline when it may cost £100+ to reconnect to BT if she has no BT line.

TV is hardly a luxury - and if she does not go out and does not go drinking, then exactly where is the harm in having a small tv package for entertainment? it is much better than blowing £60/£100 out drinking and having a meal in one evening!

Because they are on JSA which comes out of the public pocket.

And it is necessary, sky costs 20-50 a month, free tv or freeview costs nothing

DON79

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Because they are on JSA which comes out of the public pocket.

And it is necessary, sky costs 20-50 a month, free tv or freeview costs nothing

Yes but cozza would get JSA in any case - what cozza chooses to spend it on is none of your business and you have no right to criticise her for it.

And cozza's bill was £18 - thought sky cost £20-£50?? It doesn't actually - check the website for yourself - packages start from £16.50 per month.

And not everyone is yet able to get freeview or free tv - depends on whether your area has switched over to digital or not? And whether the aerial on your roof is any good or not as well? Either way, sky could well be the cheapest option as opposed to getting someone out to replace or fix an aerial.