Is BT contravening its own code of practice?

Heinz

Why are you still paying quarterly? I did for over 40 years - and then found some sense.

I now pay (yes, I do pay by DD to save £1.50/month and have opted for paper-free billing to save another £1.25/month) monthly whole bill direct debit - and now lend BT only a third of what I used to in advance.

Rockport

Heinz wrote: »

Why are you still paying quarterly? I did for over 40 years - and then found some sense.

I now pay (yes, I do pay by DD to save £1.50/month and have opted for paper-free billing to save another £1.25/month) monthly whole bill direct debit - and now lend BT only a third of what I used to in advance.

The day I received a letter confirming that I had arranged a direct debit to pay my bill with somebody elses bank details, was the day I saw sense and decided I would never provide my bank details to BT.

If BT isn't even prepaired to implement a practice whereby they automatically correlate bank details with the BT account holder, why on earth is it sensible to provide them with your bank details? Perhaps you don't see any problem with your bank details being used to pay another persons bill, I certainly do. If I had been a dishonest person I could have merely sat allowing the poor chap who had his personal bank details sent out to me at my address in a confirmation letter pay my bill until such time it was flagged.

The top and bottom of it is that the competence of BT's customer service is now very close to what I would describe as appalling and for such a flagship company of the UK, it is nothing short of a disgrace.

Anyhow for the time being, I'm certainly leaving BT and it will take some fundamental changes before I will ever consider returning as a customer.

Mark_In_Hampshire

Rockport wrote: »

The day I received a letter confirming that I had arranged a direct debit to pay my bill with somebody elses bank details, was the day I saw sense and decided I would never provide my bank details to BT.

If BT isn't even prepaired to implement a practice whereby they automatically correlate bank details with the BT account holder, why on earth is it sensible to provide them with your bank details? Perhaps you don't see any problem with your bank details being used to pay another persons bill, I certainly do. If I had been a dishonest person I could have merely sat allowing the poor chap who had his personal bank details sent out to me at my address in a confirmation letter pay my bill until such time it was flagged.

That issue is just yet another in a long list of issues with direct debit.

Since all the company needs to set up the direct debit is your sort code and account number, and they then pass this to the bank who give them the mandate without performing any checks at all or any due diligence (e.g. checking you signed something) anyone can set up a direct debit on your bank account and start taking money out whether fraudulently or by mistake (e.g. a keying error).

If that resulted in you going overdrawn, you're liable for bank charges even though you never actually did set the thing up anyway.

If you cancel a direct debit, the payee in question can then simply set it up again and carry on taking money out.

The only way to stop this from happening is to tell your bank never to allow them on your account thus closing that wide open door.

Mark_In_Hampshire

ACDeag wrote: »

I see TalkTalk are now going to take (for ex-Tiscali customers anyway) their money out of your account 3 days after billing date. Surely this is getting rediculous.

Only if you're daft enough to enable them to have open access to your bank account.

mjm3346

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

Ah, but if you had a bill with a due date of the 25th, you'd have received it on the 23rd.

If the reminder was dated the 20th, you'd receive that on the 28th five days after, leaving only seven days in total to pay the bill, which is ludicrous as well as a waste of paper.

But that seems to be the norm for what companies think they can get away with these days.

If the reminder was dated the 20th you would have to the 25th to pay, it is 5 days from when it is sent not from when it is received.

BT would be better off either adding the "late charge" to all bills then deducting it as a prompt payment discount for those paid by the due date (showing the due date of the next bill on the current one would give customers the chance to contact BT to chase the bill up if they had not received it although most people should be able to work out how long 3 months is and chase it up anyway)
or
BT should start charging £5 a month for non DD payments the same as Virgin.

Mark_In_Hampshire

Does anyone really pay Virgin Media £5 per month to pay them? I'd be interested in their broadband service if we could get it here, but if I was told I'd have to pay £5 to pay them, I'd laugh, offer them the option to provide it without that charge, and if not then re-evaluate whether I'd want their service or not as the price is not as advertised.

If the reminder was dated the 20th, you wouldn't receive it until the 28th if it follows the same pattern as the bills.

mjm3346

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

Does anyone really pay Virgin Media £5 per month to pay them?... as the price is not as advertised.

If the reminder was dated the 20th, you wouldn't receive it until the 28th if it follows the same pattern as the bills.

BT charge based on when it is sent not when it is received.
The charge for the non DD route with Virgin is in their terms and conditions, it is a payment charge which can be avoided so they can quote prices without it just like the budget airlines. Having looked again you can end up paying an extra £6.25/month.

"Prices quoted are for payment by Direct Debit and e-billing. If you pay by non-Direct Debit methods you will incur a monthly £5 charge...for payment handling services. £1 per month added for paper bills (£1.25 after 1 May 2009).

Rockport

mjm3346 wrote: »

If the reminder was dated the 20th you would have to the 25th to pay, it is 5 days from when it is sent not from when it is received.

BT would be better off either adding the "late charge" to all bills then deducting it as a prompt payment discount for those paid by the due date (showing the due date of the next bill on the current one would give customers the chance to contact BT to chase the bill up if they had not received it although most people should be able to work out how long 3 months is and chase it up anyway)
or
BT should start charging £5 a month for non DD payments the same as Virgin.

I take it you don't believe paying for a service 3 months in advance, before you have received the service, a service that you may never use due to changing providers or moving home, is prompt enough already?

Do you agree with me that BT should pay "additional charges" upfront in the event that they don't bill the customer correctly, and then claim it back the following bill providing they have actually managed to issue a correct bill?

Mark_In_Hampshire

mjm3346 wrote: »

BT charge based on when it is sent not when it is received.
The charge for the non DD route with Virgin is in their terms and conditions, it is a payment charge which can be avoided so they can quote prices without it just like the budget airlines. Having looked again you can end up paying an extra £6.25/month.

"Prices quoted are for payment by Direct Debit and e-billing. If you pay by non-Direct Debit methods you will incur a monthly £5 charge...for payment handling services. £1 per month added for paper bills (£1.25 after 1 May 2009).

I don't see how it's based on when it's sent when it takes 8 days to get to the customer. Rather, it appears be be based on a notional "when generated" date instead, and then left lying around for 6 days, and then put in the post.

If anyone is mad enough to pay VM £5 to pay them...

Mark_In_Hampshire

Rockport wrote: »

I take it you don't believe paying for a service 3 months in advance, before you have received the service, a service that you may never use due to changing providers or moving home, is prompt enough already?

Do you agree with me that BT should pay "additional charges" upfront in the event that they don't bill the customer correctly, and then claim it back the following bill providing they have actually managed to issue a correct bill?

As an example - car insurance. I prefer to pay for a year in advance and get a discount rather than setting up a standing order or having to make 4 or 12 payments. Easier, quicker, and more importantly, cheaper.

Charging for "mistakes" is not really a good idea. That's what DD is fundamentally based on. If the Banks didn't charge for mistakes (whether by you or the payee) then they would have no interest whatsoever in operating it.

If you don't pay by DD your question simply does not arise. You get a bill, you pay the correct part and dispute the remainder. You don't pay money you don't owe. There's no need for punitive charges in any direction.