The dark side of Direct Debit

jdlk

Today I received a letter from the Radio Times informing me that the charge for my subscription was going to increase by 73 per cent.

Not that you would ever have known it from the letter I received.

The letter has a headline which says:
"Important Confirmation of the set-up of your Direct Debit Instruction, including future payment schedule."

The letter started with four paragraphs telling me how lucky I was to have a subscription to the Radio Times.

The fifth paragraph begins: "Since you opted to subscribe to the Radio Times by Direct Debit, your magazine subscription will continue without you missing a single issue. You can rest assured you'll be getting a great deal - your subscription will continue at £26 - saving 20 per cent."

That's £26 every six months. My subscription is currently £15 every six months.

I am sure this is a perfectly legal format, but it is, at the very least, economical with the truth.

I am surprised the law allows businesses to get away with this kind of under-hand practice. I would have thought that, if a business expects a customer to pay 73 per cent more for the product, they'd have to be up-front about it.

Is this worth raising with the FSA or other regulator?

jambosans

jdlk wrote: »

I am surprised the law allows businesses to get away with this kind of under-hand practice. I would have thought that, if a business expects a customer to pay 73 per cent more for the product, they'd have to be up-front about it.

Is this worth raising with the FSA or other regulator?

Are you joking? Why is this the dark side of Direct Debits?

Let me get this straight, Radio Times inform you in writing that they are increasing your subscription charge by £11 for a six month period, and you want to report them to the FSA? First of all, you can't, the FSA don't regulate the Radio Times. Secondly, what is the issue here? They have given you all the information you require, in writing, with I'm assuming, adequate time to cancel your subscription.

I also can't see why they are not being "up-front"? The letter is headed "Important Confirmation of the set-up of your Direct Debit Instruction, including future payment schedule." That's pretty clear the letter contains updated payment information.

I think you are making an issue out of absolutely nothing.

jdlk

jambosans wrote: »

Are you joking? Why is this the dark side of Direct Debits?

Let me get this straight, Radio Times inform you in writing that they are increasing your subscription charge by £11 for a six month period, and you want to report them to the FSA? First of all, you can't, the FSA don't regulate the Radio Times. Secondly, what is the issue here? They have given you all the information you require, in writing, with I'm assuming, adequate time to cancel your subscription.

I also can't see why they are not being "up-front"? The letter is headed "Important Confirmation of the set-up of your Direct Debit Instruction, including future payment schedule." That's pretty clear the letter contains updated payment information.

I think you are making an issue out of absolutely nothing.

No, I'm not joking. I read all my mail in full. I keep records, and I'm intelligent enough to see through the nonsense.

But many people are not. Many people might not recall the charges they are paying. They might take a letter like this at face value.

Yes, caveat emptor, I know. But the the letter I received is just part of the ever-increasing level of dubious practice in business, practices that people have just started accepting becuase, well, everyone does it.

In the end, regulation is about protecting the vulnerable.

The letter should have begun: "Due to increased costs/whatever, your subscription will increase from £15 to £26, starting next month."

That is crystal clear, and allows people to make an informed decision.

It should not be hidden away in the fifth paragraph, telling me they are about to save me 20 per cent.

Lokolo

jdlk wrote: »

No, I'm not joking. I read all my mail in full. I keep records, and I'm intelligent enough to see through the nonsense.

But many people are not. Many people might not recall the charges they are paying. They might take a letter like this at face value.

Yes, caveat emptor, I know. But the the letter I received is just part of the ever-increasing level of dubious practice in business, practices that people have just started accepting becuase, well, everyone does it.

In the end, regulation is about protecting the vulnerable.

The letter should have begun: "Due to increased costs/whatever, your subscription will increase from £15 to £26, starting next month."

That is crystal clear, and allows people to make an informed decision.

It should not be hidden away in the fifth paragraph, telling me they are about to save me 20 per cent.

Its not illegal to have more than X amount of words in a letter informing you of changes

Dear me.

Do you want compensation from them too!?

jdlk

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this. Perhaps the title I chose for this thread overstates the case.

I'm not looking for anything. I just think regulators should encourage clarity of communication to protect vulnerable consumers.

That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Lokolo

jdlk wrote: »

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this. Perhaps the title I chose for this thread overstates the case.

I'm not looking for anything. I just think regulators should encourage clarity of communication to protect vulnerable consumers.

That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.

They did make it clear.

In the 5th paragraph of the letter it states you will be charged £26.

Simples.

lemonjelly

Don't think there is a need for the other 2 responses to be so rude.

You have the option to cancel your subscription if you think the rise is excessive.

I agree by the way, that it is a marketing idea to "bury" the news on the increase that far down the letter, as most won't read that far down the letter, & possibly won't even notice until they review their bank balance.

jambosans

jdlk wrote: »

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this. Perhaps the title I chose for this thread overstates the case.

I'm not looking for anything. I just think regulators should encourage clarity of communication to protect vulnerable consumers.

That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You are making a big deal about this, and you have overstated the case.

I couldn't echo Lokolo's point more. They did make it clear. Who are the vulnerable consumers? Those who don't bother to read letters? Don't be so silly.

I think you're more miffed about them increasing your subscription than anything else. If Radio Times had reduced it, and printed it on the letter in the same fashion would you have bothered kicking up a stink? I don't think so.

jambosans

lemonjelly wrote: »

I agree by the way, that it is a marketing idea to "bury" the news on the increase that far down the letter, as most won't read that far down the letter, & possibly won't even notice until they review their bank balance.

Perhaps you and the OP can start a campaign to have a law brought in to make all letters under 100 words, and printed in big red bold type.

"The Radio Times Act 2009"

I'm not being rude, I just can't believe this is an issue, period.

Lokolo

lemonjelly wrote: »

Don't think there is a need for the other 2 responses to be so rude.

You have the option to cancel your subscription if you think the rise is excessive.

I agree by the way, that it is a marketing idea to "bury" the news on the increase that far down the letter, as most won't read that far down the letter, & possibly won't even notice until they review their bank balance.

Thats why it's marketing! I agree its a bit of a pain having to read to the 5th chapter but they're not doing anything wrong here. The OP wants to see if he/she can complain to the FSA about a marketing ploy. Come on.

peachyprice

So what is your gripe with Direct Debits?

Surely your thread should be entitled 'Radio Times Subscription 73% increase' and be moved to 'Praise, Vents & Warnings.

And to suggest the FSA has any authority as to how much RT charges for it's subscription is ludicrous.