We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The dark side of Direct Debit
Comments
-
when you signed up, was it on a special offer? The fact the price has now risen to £1 an issue, which in my opinion is very cheap based on the cover price, suggests you signed up for a limited period reduction originally0
-
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.
Quite right. The issue I was raising was about clarity and honesty. It's essentially a moral issue. A 73 per cent increase is not trivial, so they should be upfront about it, and not suggest they are saving me money.
That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was just wondering if any regulator suggests "parameters" to businesses regarding their communications on Direct Debits -- e.g. "if you're making a substantial increase in your price, you shouldn't suggest you're saving the customer money".peachyprice wrote: »And to suggest the FSA has any authority as to how much RT charges for it's subscription is ludicrous.0 -
I agree -- I have no argument with the new price (when seen in isolation). Yes, it's still decent value. I have no issue with the increase, just the way it was implemented. But it's also worth saying that when I signed up, it was not a "limited period offer", just the subscription rate I was offered (about 18 months ago).The fact the price has now risen to £1 an issue, which in my opinion is very cheap based on the cover price, suggests you signed up for a limited period reduction originally0 -
Quite right. The issue I was raising was about clarity and honesty. It's essentially a moral issue. A 73 per cent increase is not trivial, so they should be upfront about it, and not suggest they are saving me money.
You can break anything down into a large percentage and make it seem a bigger deal. However we are talking about an increase of £11 over a six month period, that's £1.80 extra a month. That is a trivial amount, furthermore, this is not a gas price increase, it is an indulgent expense that you can cancel if you are unhappy with the rate. I also do not see an issue with suggesting they are saving you money, because regardless of the subscription increase you will still be receiving a discount.
I think my point is, there are so many bigger issues in the world (no pun intended), and this is not one of them.Anything I post is my opinion, so from time to time I may be wrong. I try to provide answers based in fact, however I don't know everything, so (like all posters on MSE), take what I say with a pinch of salt.0 -
Couldn't agree more. I'm just a little bit surprised that no respondents to this thread see any general issue of moral (not legal or commercial) significance here. I'm obviously far too sensitive.I think my point is, there are so many bigger issues in the world (no pun intended), and this is not one of them.
Maybe we should leave it at that.0 -
Couldn't agree more. I'm just a little bit surprised that no respondents to this thread see any general issue of moral (not legal or commercial) significance here. I'm obviously far too sensitive.
Maybe we should leave it at that.
how does this differ from virtyally every price increase whether on food, clothing, utilities, holidays, electrical goods,, cars, bikes etc etc?
I've rarely seen any company highlighting or even mentioning price increases.0 -
I was only raising this issue in the context of Direct Debits, where the company automatically takes the increased payments.how does this differ from virtyally every price increase whether on food, clothing, utilities, holidays, electrical goods,, cars, bikes etc etc?
I've rarely seen any company highlighting or even mentioning price increases.
I was arguing that, with Direct Debits, simply saying caveat emptor is not enough. The seller already has your wallet. There should be a greater obligation on the seller to ensure clear communication when charges are being increased, including the level of the increase. That's all.0 -
I too got one of these 'letters' from Radio Times today.
The size of the print detailing the increase in price is very small (and so I can see that some people would have difficulty reading it - or might miss it altogether). I have had many other letters informing of price rises (Direct Debit and other payment types) over the years, but these have all made the increases far more clear. I suspect they did produce the document in this style in order to try to make the change the least obvious possible, whilst still complying with their obligations under the Direct Debit scheme (which incidentally I think is a good method for payments).
To be honest, I am not that bothered though. I just cancelled the Direct Debit......0 -
Couldn't agree more. I'm just a little bit surprised that no respondents to this thread see any general issue of moral (not legal or commercial) significance here. I'm obviously far too sensitive.
Maybe we should leave it at that.
I agree with you JDLK. Yes, they are entitled to increase their subscription by as much as they like and, yes, you can cancel it, but I agree that it is the moral of the issue. This government bangs on about consumer rights and brings in thousands of laws to micro-manage our lives. I think it could do more to encourage companies to make their terms clearer and a large increase like this should be announced as just that and not dressed up as a money saving.
Believe it or not, other posters, there are loads of people who do not bother to read letters. All right they are stupid and you might say it serves them right if they are ripped off, but they are the sort who will not notice an increase like this.0 -
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.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.
a couple of things I'd ask you both to consider:
Be Nice to MSE'ers - your posts were the opposite of nice
Manners cost nothing.
And to argue you weren't being rude, in a patronising and condescending manner, with the points you make and in the manner you put them simply highlights that you were being rude, unfriendly and unhelpful. Th OP came for advice, not mockery. You could have given a simple, straightforward eloquent well thought out answer. Instead you decided to insult them & big yourself up.
I hope you're proud of how you treat people in order to look cool on a website.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards