Virgin Media Bill

kwikbreaks

jb66 wrote: »

People who pay with cheaper methods should get cheaper services, seems fair to me

Precisely.

Where it can be unfair is when people (usually the disadvantaged already) are unable to open a bank account but that is hardly the fault of the service provider.

Buzby

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I've been using DDs for about 40 years for just about every bill and have never once had a problem. I did once have an issue with an ISP that used CC continual debit instead but sorted that too eventually without too much of a problem (the threat of a small claims court action seemed to do the trick).

Of course ymmv.

I would suggest you are particularly lucky - especially in 40 years? The type of Direct Debit I'm discussing has only been with us since the early 80's, and later on became the problem of 'unspecified amounts on unspecified dates' quicly followed by absolutely no requirement to provide a signature as proof of your wishes.

Actually, the current furore over UK Border controls (lack of) is a perfect mirror, it is a relocation of controls to a level that only one person can suffer (the country or the consumer).

As to your last point, in law, your threat of a Small Claims action isn't as strong as you believe. The act of taking the funds cannot be sued for due to the ways DD are structured - it cannot be fraud if you indeed agree (or they say you did). Making a claim for an overpayment is a different matter, but had no relevance to the DD existing in the first place.

In any event, why should the old and disabled worry about setting up and expensive certificate with of Office of Protection prior to the arrival of any feebleness, when a DDM mandate can let anyone take what they want when they want - and no signature required?

The best thing? There's no paper trail - a recipe for fraud if ever there was one.

ZenUK

visidigi wrote: »

they are allowed - card payments have a % fee to be paid, it costs the business more to take a card payment than a DD - same for the airlines, holiday companies etc etc.

Maybe Virgin should use SagePay as their payment processor, charge only 10p per transaction for card payments after a £20/monthly fee (no percentages or other fees)

This is just profiteering and the OFT should take another look at it.

kwikbreaks

40 years or 30 years - I'm unsure. All I know is that I had a bank account and variable utility bills from around 1970 and so far as I recall I paid by DD from the start although that may not be so. Obviously if DD wasn't introduced until the 80's then it wasn't 40 years but it's been a very long time and I haven't had a problem with them.

The problem I had with the ISP (Eclipse as it happens) was not a DD (which I already said). I'd signed up for a free trial of their BB for which they required a CC number. It was dire in the extreme so I got my MAC within the one month free trial period and moved on. They then sent invoices for apparently random amounts over a period of three months which amounted to £80 taken from my CC. I suppose I could have rung the CC company and had them reversed but felt it better to get it sorted with Eclipse rather than risk the morons passing imaginary debts over to a debt collection agency.

Back on topic though - if anybody doesn't like what a company is charging for not paying by DD they are completely at liberty to use a different provider who charges less or doesn't charge at all.

I'd personally pay by barter whereby I send them potatoes or carrots which I've grown instead of money but sadly none of the ISPs will listen to my perfectly reasonable offers. There is a well known instance which did the rounds on the web some time ago where a company rudely refused to accept a picture of a spider as payment for a debt. It makes a far more interesting read imo than somebody moaning about easily avoidable charges - http://keboch.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/please-accept-this-spider-as-payment/