charging for not paying by direct debit

McKneff

Hardly a naive assumption. I can only go on personal experience, I try never to assume anything. I have never in 45 years had any problem with DD's

bookworm1363

... therefore you do not know how bad things get when problems do arise.

nomoneytoday

In order to pay via cheque or card the company needs to employ a phone operator, plus someone to bank the cheques, plus someone to chase late payments. I would rather not pay the £5 charge towards those costs so setup a DD

facingthefuture

bookworm1363 wrote: »

However, people have successfully pursued and reclaimed those charges too, as not being representative of their true costs (ie what it actually costs them to process your payment by other means than DD). The fact they do it doesn't make it necessarily lawful..............I'm letting the £5 build up and then I'll reclaim it all in one lump sum at the same time as the £10 "late" payment they have stuck on my account too.)

Bookworm, I agree wholeheartedly.
Oh this reclaiming thing is interesting - can I do this too? Is there a place which advises about it?I think it is so lousy they make these charges.

bookworm1363

Well, if you search the telecoms forum on CAG (see my sig), you will see how people have done it and start the process yourself. In particular, Martin3030 has now reclaimed 2 or 3 times and got his money back every time. :cool:

Sooner or later, I think that the bottom is going to fall out of this racket... In a credit crunch time, people want to be more in control and will vote with their feet if they don't get value for money. VM (telewest as was) used to give you a discount for paying by DD, that's an incentive, that's fine. But penalising people because they want the freedom to pay as is convenient to them, that's just wrong.

ironchicken

anniehanlon wrote: »

Oh, it will have been in the T & Cs.
If you always pay it before the due date every month i cant see why you have a problem with paying by DD, surely it would be easier to not have to remember to ring them and you'd be a fiver a month bettr off.
and gawd knows how much if you just happende to forget to ring the.

I get paid on the 27th of the month and VM would take the DD around the 9th or 10th of the following month. I have asked about changing the due date, but they say that's the way it is and can't be altered. I pay it before the due date so that I know that it has been paid and I don't have to worry about it.
Thanks very much to Bookworm for your advice - I'll certainly look into reclaiming.:T

Optimist

BT has been taken to court several times over this and has won. The most notable last year, a lady, a solicitor I believe, took them to court because they charged her extra for paying cash rather than by DD. She lost, the judge said it was a core term of her contract. No precedent has been set as the judges have only been district judges..

bookworm1363

Optimist wrote: »

BT has been taken to court several times over this and has won. The most notable last year, a lady, a solicitor I believe, took them to court because they charged her extra for paying cash rather than by DD. She lost, the judge said it was a core term of her contract. No precedent has been set as the judges have only been district judges..

That is correct, yes.

VM however have not gone to court, settling every time instead.

Also as you correctly say, the Small Claims decision does not create a precedent and it is down to each individual judge.

I personally fail to see where the non-paying by DD can be deemed a core term: A core term is defined by the fact that a contract can not function properly without that term being included. For years and years, all these companies functioned without forcing/ charging for DD, so it seems to me the reasoning is quite flawed anyway.

Furthermore, the terms are not individually negotiated and create an imbalance towards the consumer, so that would be breaches of the UTCCR 99.

happywarmgun

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Ask yourselves why companies are so keen to make you have a DD? Yep, got it in one. If (when) they mess up, see the fun you will have to try and get your money back from them after you've allowed them to dip unchecked into your account!

That's a 'got it in two' stab. And not really the reason (though obviously it is a fringe benefit from the companies perspective). The real reasons are the certainty of collection for the full amount - and the positive impact that has a companies cash flow position plus the hugely lower costs of payment collection that come from DD. The extra they charge for non DD payments probably goes nowhere near covering the costs for payment collection systems that need to be in place as alternatives to DD. (call centres, automated phone software, defaulter chasing or whatever).

It's not only huge 'evil; multinationals that do this - much small enterprises have also come to the same realisation.

happywarmgun

ironchicken wrote: »

Hello, I've been reading this site for some time now and had some very useful tips from it, but this is my first post.
It has only just come to my notice that Virgin Media are actually charging me £5.00 a month for not paying by direct debit, but phoning up and paying over the phone with my debit card. Are they allowed to do this? I am certain that this amount wasn't in the contract that I signed - in fact, I'm sure it wasn't as it is only recently that I have been charged.
Any advice would be gratefully received (the reason that I don't want to pay by DD is I am trying to sort my finances and I prefer to pay when I want to and not a date set by them - I always pay before the due date though).

It is moot and depends on how upfront they were about the charges in their literature.

Legally companies are on far safer ground if they offer a discount for payment by DD rather than charging a premium for payment by means other than DD. Which they end up going with usually depends on how powerful the marketing department it!