MSE News: Government to ban debit and credit card surcharges

2sides2everystory

chattychappy wrote: »

I would prefer SWISS to quote the price in the manner of its choosing and I will decide to buy not to buy on that basis. I flew with a few months ago, Munich/Geneva, City to Zurich. Very good I thought.

All very well if you know you should always dismiss the first figure the airline puts in front of you and because you are in an edgy business yourself you also know that you must then keep your eyes peeled for anything ... anything at all ... which might get added in before or after you think you are done. If you think business generally should be run on that laissez-faire model and that morals don't come into it then you could at least say so. You'll be against the grain however - the UK already has legislation which outlaws misleading commercial practices. It just needs pressing home a bit more, that's all.

I've also flown Ryanair - I know what to expect.

I don't need the government telling me how they should quote prices or factor in credit card handling charges.

Yes you do, because you think you know what to expect and you are telling other people that too, but you don't (I know you don't because I don't from one week to the next at the moment and I think I use them far more than you!)

opinions4u

What's to stop an airline offering discounts for certain payment methods?

"Standard far £105, or save £5 by paying with a Ripoffair Pre-Pay Mastercard"

zagfles

opinions4u wrote: »

What's to stop an airline offering discounts for certain payment methods?

"Standard far £105, or save £5 by paying with a Ripoffair Pre-Pay Mastercard"

Nothing. And nor should there be.

If you think that will defeat the purpose of these proposals then you haven't understood the point of them.

chattychappy

opinions4u wrote: »

What's to stop an airline offering discounts for certain payment methods?

"Standard far £105, or save £5 by paying with a Ripoffair Pre-Pay Mastercard"

Yes you can see it now. There will be gaps, loopholes... then there will be further rules and regs.. then there will be "misselling claims" and consumers looking to reclaim off merchants/CCs.

chattychappy

2sides2everystory wrote: »

the UK already has legislation which outlaws misleading commercial practices. It just needs pressing home a bit more, that's all.

Precisely - there is already ample consumer protection legislation and caselaw dating back centuries. The more we get, the less responsibility people seem to take. Enough is enough - the balance is right as it is. That is already a long way from laissez-faire.

2sides2everystory

I don't think many are asking for new legislation but if greedy corporates will not abide by the spirit of existing legislation then we may expect more. Caselaw dating back centuries doesn't help us much when greedy corporates just stand their lawyers out front and say "sue us then if you have the time and the resources to analyse what we do using new technology and new business ways and in the light of what we and others got away with last week."

I have no idea why you think the balance is right. It isn't people who are shirking responsibility; it's corporates. I notice you said nothing about morality in business.

What we are talking about is an exactly similar question as that being addressed in the Leveson Inquiry into Media Ethics. The sole reason for the problems is greedy corporates and those that work for them being too weak to resist the pressures. Then the same people come onto internet forums and attempt to justify it as all fair because they absolutely couldn't live with what they do all day at work if it wasn't, now could they?

Venusflytrap

zagfles wrote: »

Why not? Wouldn't you rather the total price be quoted up front?

Because it would clearly demonstrate that the card charges have simply been absorbed into the flight costs and not abolished, defeating the industry watchdog's efforts.

At least as things are now, if we had paid with a debit card we wouldn't have been charged £9.00. In the future there may not be any chance to avoid these charges esp. if they are less conspicuous.

mgarl10024

pqrdef wrote: »

Anybody who thinks anybody will get anything cheaper as a result of this change is away with the fairies.

.1xp wrote: »

But it will make prices much more transparent, which will then in turn allow people to shop around easier to find the best overall deal without having the added charge for paying added at the end.

I agree with both of these. It's not about making it cheaper, but more transparent - no nasty snags 8 pages in to an application. There's little point in price comparison sites for example if the prices they're working with are all before unknown extras are added.

opinions4u wrote: »

My big fear is that this could encourage more retailers to actually charge for acceptance of credit cards.

I don't see a problem here. If a retailer wants to add a charge on for accepting credit cards (and I don't mean a generic price increase, I mean a specific charge for using a credit card) then this will put them far lower on my list when choosing who to buy from.

zagfles

Venusflytrap wrote: »

Because it would clearly demonstrate that the card charges have simply been absorbed into the flight costs and not abolished, defeating the industry watchdog's efforts.

As pointed out several times on this thread. the point is NOT to make prices lower, it's to make them more transparent, so the cost of the product isn't hidden in the card charges. So you know what you'll be paying before getting 90% of the way through the booking process.

At least as things are now, if we had paid with a debit card we wouldn't have been charged £9.00. In the future there may not be any chance to avoid these charges esp. if they are less conspicuous.

They will be allowed to charge extra for credit cards provided they are just passing on what they're charged (probably 1-2%).

chattychappy

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I don't think many are asking for new legislation but if greedy corporates

I'm afraid your repeated reference to "greedy corporates" betrays where you are coming from. You then roll in the Leveon inquiry - fair enough. It seems you are suspicious of capitalism/free markets/profit motive and you are entitled to your view.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I have no idea why you think the balance is right. It isn't people who are shirking responsibility; it's corporates. I notice you said nothing about morality in business.

Well, you put things in such a loaded way - I can understand you wouldn't. Corporates are simply addressing "greedy" (to use your word) consumers who want something for nothing. The crazy cheap flight, free current account banking, an iPhone for £30. This site is full of such deals - they are paid for by cross-subsidy. A monthly tariff for the phone, bumped up credit card charges for the flight, the prospect of other financial services sold by the current account provider.

Last week I booked a hotel and return flight online. No charges or fees. I chose to do it that way. Others might go with cheaper airlines and play the game. That's why I think the balance is about right. You would take away that choice.

And where would it end? Should restaurants be stopped from overcharging for drink in order to keep set-menu prices down? Starbucks forced to "justify" why their coffee is so much more than their material cost? The (greedy, of course) hotel I'm currently sitting in will charge me US$3 for taking the can of Tiger from the fridge or US$4 a minute if I use the phone to call the UK. I'm happy that they can choose to offer that - and I will turn it down. But I don't want that choice taken away from me.

What about inflated delivery charges - will suppliers have to "justify" that a product really did cost a certain amount to deliver in order not to leave themselves open to a claim?

As for morality - I can only address it this way. What a consenting consumer and supplier agree to is their own business. It would be immoral (and illegal) if having drunk the $3 beer it turned out to be fake, or the pricing wasn't clear. That's another issue. But I believe suppliers should be free to charge what they like for a product or service. If Ryanair want to charge £50 for accepting a credit card, then let them do it - provided it's clear.

People who have a particular view about "corporates" can choose companies that behave differently - buy fair trade products, are not-for-profit, or whatever suits them. I just don't want a value system imposed upon me. I suspect whilst most people like to shop in Waitrose from time-to-time, the raw value of Tescos is hard to beat.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

The sole reason for the problems is greedy corporates and those that work for them being too weak to resist the pressures.

So the workers are failing to rise up, eh?