The dark side of Direct Debit

jambosans

jdlk wrote: »

I was only raising this issue in the context of Direct Debits, where the company automatically takes the increased payments.

What do you suggest, the company cancel the subscription until you agree on the new price? I'm sure many Radio Times subscribers who quite happily accepted the increase would be most inconvenienced if they had to contact RT to advise they still wanted to subscribe.

jdlk wrote: »

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.

Direct Debits can be cancelled at any point with the bank, so there is not an issue with the means of payment. The seller "has your wallet" in the sense that you have a subscription with them. Radio Times informed you of the increase, and if you are unhappy, it is your responsibility to cancel. You think they are being unclear, I think you are being melodramatic, they informed you, regardless of it not taking shape as giant bold type at the top of the letter, they still informed you.

MrCarrot

I agree with the OP - they buried details of the price increase further down in the letter and then went on to say they were saving him 20%

They may have not broken any laws, but sadly this is the kind of underhand thing that companies do now, since making a quick buck is more important to them than long term satisfaction and customer loyalty.

I expect they are hoping that 90% of people don't notice the details of the price increase in their letter.

fakeplastictwee

Whilst the thread title might be slightly OTT, I actually agree with the OP.

If the Radio Times were writing to inform you of a price increase, why not just do that and be completely up front without all the other blurb? They have done the minimum to be legal, hoping that some people won't read further down the letter. Yes, it is the customer's responsibility to read their mail, but the fact that they state the reason for writing in the FIFTH paragraph shows they're trying to catch people out, which seems a bit sly to me.

I suppose it is in a company's interest to word a letter like this, and from their perspective they're a business that needs to make money. Doesn't do much for giving them a very good reputation though, IMO.

rb10

This is sadly the way that many companies try out marketing, it's another version of the asterisk with the small print at the bottom - they hope that people don't read that far.

With Direct Debits, so many people just ignore the amount that comes out of their account each month, so if you don't read everything that you are sent thoroughly, then you may well get hit by something like this. All companies are there to make a profit, and so if they can bury price rises away where many people won't see them, they will.

Tom125

Also, in the letter, Radio Times claim that by continuing to subscribe, you are saving 20%. However, when you read the '*' at the bottom of the page (in even smaller print), you find out that this '20% saving' includes a 'contribution' to postage.

I calculate the actual saving on the newstand price as only 10% - although they don't mention this anywhere in the letter......

It is also only a 10% saving on the current rate they charge for new subscriptions via their website (and these subscriptions get 8 issues for £1 on top as well, which actually works out cheaper for a year!).

So whilst it is legal, I think it is misleading, and not what I would expect from BBC Magazines......

olly300

OP I suggest you write to a few newspapers about the letter with a copy of it. If they have done an article about the financing of the BBC in the past few days they will be especially interested.

Otherwise the only other way you can complain is to first make a complaint to the Radio Times then depending on their reply make a complaint to their local Trading Standards. http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/ (put the postcode in below)

This isn't an issue for the FSA.

jambosans

lemonjelly wrote: »

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.

My posts were sarcastic, yes, but I chose to be sarcastic to highlight how this is not a major issue. Also, the OP posted an over the top thread titled "The dark side of Direct Debits". With that kind of drama, of course there are going to be sarcastic replies.

lemonjelly wrote: »

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.

I do not consider my posts rude. Sarcastic, yes. Rude, no. The reason they were sarcastic was more to highlight how much this issue "wasn't a big deal". I may be blunt, and sarcastic, which can be perceived as ruddiness, however it is not intended. If anything they should be taken more light hearted than any serious response.

lemonjelly wrote: »

Th OP came for advice, not mockery.

I did not mock the OP. I "poked fun" through my use of sarcasm at the post, and the suggestion of reporting something so trivial to the F.S.A., but I did not "mock" the OP.

lemonjelly wrote: »

You could have given a simple, straightforward eloquent well thought out answer.

My answers were simple, through questioning (however sarcastic or rude you perceive it to be) I tried to highlight to the OP the fuss they were making over nothing.

lemonjelly wrote: »

Instead you decided to insult them & big yourself up.

I did not insult the OP and I did not "big myself up".

lemonjelly wrote: »

I hope you're proud of how you treat people in order to look cool on a website.

I'm sorry, but I am not twelve, I do not come on MSE to gain social status, I give advice. You are also being completely overdramatic in the context of this post - "I hope you're proud", don't be so ridiculous. If the OP didn't want such an over the top response, they shouldn't have posted such an over the top thread.

I don't think I've acted inappropriately in anyway, if the OP is offended, then I apologise, as there is no intent.

never-in-doubt

jambosans wrote: »

I don't think I've acted inappropriately in anyway, .

You haven't - not at all. Keep up the good advice matey and don't let posts like that stop your excellent constructive discussions and advice.... :beer:

jago25_98

I would say the dark side is that any Direct Debit originator can sign up anyone's account without prior approval (can be done online without a signature), and there is no way to block this (can only block one originator at a time, no whitelisting).

See what happened to Jeremy Clarkson.

rb10

jago25_98 wrote: »

I would say the dark side is that any Direct Debit originator can sign up anyone's account without prior approval (can be done online without a signature), and there is no way to block this (can only block one originator at a time, no whitelisting).

See what happened to Jeremy Clarkson.

Yep, and you can go straight to your bank, and they'll put the money back in your account immediately.

You are fully protected with Direct Debits. Provided that you read what you agree to, you can be 100% sure that only genuine direct debits can ever be taken.