Warning! BT increase charges for non direct debit payers

the_devil_made_me_do_it

I don't think companies should be allowed to charge non-direct debit paying customers. I have reasons why i prefer to pay in cash when i receive my bill, and my payment is never late, they probs receive my payment sooner than they would if I had set up DD.

diamonds

well just like the supermarkets, card payments go through a BT subsiduary company BT Payment Services Ltd

these kind of companies have tax advantages and bolster BT profits as a whole


about 20 million people, apparently have just been stung by BT's new £4.50 charge for "processing my payment"


thats a nice tax free earner

bristolleedsfan

diamonds wrote: »

well just like the supermarkets, card payments go through a BT subsiduary company BT Payment Services Ltd

these kind of companies have tax advantages and bolster BT profits as a whole


about 20 million people, apparently have just been stung by BT's new £4.50 charge for "processing my payment"


thats a nice tax free earner

direct debit is much more efficent method of payment than all the other methods, costs less to administer, so people who pay by direct debit get cheaper bills ( no reminders/no red reminders/no non payment demands/ no paying post offices or other outlets fees for processing/cheques cost money to process.

theres a direct debit guarantee, if incorrect payments are taken from someones account, building society/bank will repay, i fail to understand why some people have a problem with direct debits

BritBrat

Some people don't have bank accounts and guess what? it's normally the people who can't afford to lose £4.50.

diamonds

BRITBRAT - correct !

also a bill produced may be in dispute while BT are still allowed to lift the bill payment via D/D while you are in dispute or have reached deadlock to allow Otelo to investigate your complaint, payments of such status are then considered correct by your financial institution via your BT bill and your bank is under no obligation to refund !! and if that mistake is high cost & you have not enough money to cover it, it bounces twice within 48hrs & twice you are charged by your bank


Why should anyone in either the above situations be penalised by a internal BT dept ?

jhp

Already a long thread here on this subject.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=400053

bristolleedsfan

BritBrat wrote: »

Some people don't have bank accounts and guess what? it's normally the people who can't afford to lose £4.50.

yep true, same as the population with the lowest income often dont have cars so end up paying more for their essential foods at their local shop while those with higher incomes drive to the supermarket and pay less for their food

dont the basic bank accounts allow direct debits ? ( ive never had one so i not aware what they do and dont do bar no overdrafts i believe)

re the comment about phone bill disputes, ive never had cause to raise one in 18 years, i guess their must be occasions when people need to raise disputes, BT do send bill with plenty of notice before direct debit is due to be claimed

do BT really claim that calls are made that really havent been made ?

wantmemoney

bristolleedsfan wrote:

do BT really claim that calls are made that really havent been made ?

no but they do bill for fraudulent non-requested/non-existant services.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4397308.stm

any company that is willing to bill for convicted criminals is not a fit company to operate a direct debit agreement.

yes the guy in the BBC program was convicted for a multimillion euro telecom fraud in Germany.

wantmemoney

here's the piece
I believe it clearly shows if you enter into a direct debit agreement with BT you effectively loose your ability to despute a reasonably questionable bill.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/article488764.ece
From The Times
October 2, 2004
Phone scam victims unable to halt larger bills

VICTIMS of internet phone scams facing large bills are now finding that their telephone companies are recouping the money by increasing their direct debits without their approval.

In some cases, more than £100 a month extra is being taken from their current accounts, and they are powerless to intervene.

The phone scams, a scandal first highlighted in Times Money, feature a rogue dialler that inserts itself into a computer, often through pop-up boxes, and diverts it from ringing its normal internet service provider. Instead, it calls international premium-rate numbers in remote countries.

Mike Claughton, a freelance writer from Ashford, Kent, found that he had fallen foul of rogue diallers in May, when BT told him that his quarterly bill had exceeded £1,000 instead of the normal £250. He believed that more than £800 was attributable to calls to premium-rate numbers made by a rogue dialler.

He queried the bill with BT and with the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (Icstis), the premium rate regulator. But while the matter was being investigated, BT increased his direct debit payments from £135 to £240 a month to recover the disputed amount. Mr Claughton found that the only way he could stop this would be to cancel the entire direct debit.

Mr Claughton and other victims of the scam, who are disappointed with Icstis’s inability to stop BT and other phone companies from chasing them for payment of disputed bills, are taking their cases to Otelo, the telecoms ombudsman.

Otelo, unlike Icstis, has the power to order phone companies to waive all, or part, of a bill if it considers it unreasonable. Otelo can be contacted on 0845 0501614 or by e-mail at enquiries@otelo.org.uk.

MARK ATHERTON

diamonds

jhp wrote: »

Already a long thread here on this subject.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=400053

I had thought of posting there but i thought it relevent you all knew that BT was not passing the costs on to customers transactions for paying non DD rather it was profiting from it & contridicts BT's official statement on thre matter