Warning! BT increase charges for non direct debit payers

Ypaymore

At least BT dont insist that you have to pay by d/d unlike some other suppliers,and also their non d/d charges are low compared to their major competitors.

As the Judge pointed out in the d/d case you dont have to stay with them, you can move your business elsewhere.

BritBrat

littleboo wrote: »

So what you're saying is that if BT ( or any other organisation ) put it's charges up, but gave DD payers a discount of the same amount, you'd be happy ?

I would Yes and I was for years.


More the fool me and wish I had found the way around it ages ago.

Mind you now it would not make any difference now as I would still get the DD rate but pay online banking.

littleboo

IanRK wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that if people like British Gas still use a reward system why have BT chosen to go in the other direction?. Over the years BT have gone from a reward system to a penalty system and no matter how you dress it up they can not justify that cost under the payment processing fee smokescreen. I pay on-line so exactly how does that justify a £4.50 fee?
It may be old fashioned and simplistic but in my eyes it is just not acceptable to penalise anyone who pays bills on time. What's so revolutionary about that idea?

You seem to have two arguments going here.

IanRK wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that if people like British Gas still use a reward system why have BT chosen to go in the other direction?.?

The reason, I suspect, is because their competitors who on the whole only accept DD payments, were comparing the BT non DD discounted price to their DD only price and claiming they were cheaper. My point is though, it doesnt matter if its a charge or a discount, because the price you pay remains the same.

IanRK wrote: »

Over the years BT have gone from a reward system to a penalty system and no matter how you dress it up they can not justify that cost under the payment processing fee smokescreen. I pay on-line so exactly how does that justify a £4.50 fee?
It may be old fashioned and simplistic but in my eyes it is just not acceptable to penalise anyone who pays bills on time. What's so revolutionary about that idea?.?

I couldnt possibly begin to try and justify why it's charged at £4.50, I've no idea what it costs. However, you have a choice, if you dont like it, change your payment method, or change your provider.

Heinz

littleboo wrote: »

However, you have a choice, if you dont like it, change your payment method, or change your provider.

But don't change to Virgin - they charge £15/quarter, not £4.50.

IanRK

littleboo wrote: »

You seem to have two arguments going here.

No just the one, it is simply not a fair practice to penalise people who pay on time and in full. My comments over discounts just indicate that there is another option. Which any and all replies from BT completeley ignore.

littleboo wrote: »

My point is though, it doesnt matter if its a charge or a discount, because the price you pay remains the same.

Not necessarily so, a discount for payments on time would include different people, probably more people, so the figures are not simply interchangeable.

littleboo wrote: »

However, you have a choice, if you dont like it, change your payment method, or change your provider.

There is some choice I agree but as they are all up to the same tricks it's Hobson's choice to some extent. Opinions on this board are fairly divided which is a good sign. I don't begrudge others paying less, far from it, I merely argue that the final position telecoms companies have chosen is not one I personally agree with from my own ethical position.
Outside planet Telecom penalty fees are normally imposed on those who are seen to trangress.

wantmemoney

@Mary_Hartnell and IanRK
Unfortunately there appear to be to many sycophantic 'BT groupies' on MSE to have a balanced debate on this topic.

For what it's worth the £1.50/month rolling non-direct debit penalty payment was calculated from BT's fictitious £100million annual 'bad debt' they claimed their 5million non-direct debit customers were costing them each year.

littleboo

wantmemoney wrote: »

@Mary_Hartnell and IanRK
Unfortunately there appear to be to many sycophantic 'BT groupies' on MSE to have a balanced debate on this topic.

Lol, Wantmemoney, surely you're not claiming to be wholey impartial an objective when it comes to BT ?!!! Pot, kettle, etc.:rotfl:

littleboo

IanRK wrote: »

Not necessarily so, a discount for payments on time would include different people, probably more people, so the figures are not simply interchangeable.

I'd agree that a discount for paying on time would be attractive. However, thats a different case from the one you were making when you said

"Looking at u-switch they're all at it now but at least gas & electric companies offer a discount for DD payments which is a much fairer system"

and the point I've been making in repsonse to that is that it isn't a fairer system at all, its the same system, either way you are charged more for not paying by direct debit.

Mark_In_Hampshire

I'm really puzzled by the "well, other companies insist you pay by direct debit, so they're not that bad" attitude.

Ask yourself this:

If utility companies demanded you leave your house keys with them so they can pop in and check the meter any time you like, or that you permanently leave your home unlocked while you're at work in case they need access, would that be OK if all the companies did it?

That is direct debit, in effect. There are zero safeguards in the system. Let's take a moment to review what the BACS website says:

http://www.bacs.co.uk/BACS/Consumers/Direct+Debit/FAQ/

How about setting up direct debits on your account - surely the organisation has to prove it's authorised by you?

[URL="javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$FAQS$Consumers dd q24','')"]Q. How will my bank know it's really me authorising a Direct Debit Instruction if it hasn't checked my signature? [/URL]
A. Under AUDDIS the organisation you are paying is responsible for checking all the information contained on your Direct Debit Instruction and satisfying themselves that they have sufficient identification. If your bank has any reason to doubt the authenticity they may request a copy of the Direct Debit Instruction from us

How laughably weak is that. In practice the Bank will hand your money out to anyone who wants it. It's like a debit card without a PIN number or a signature and just as safe if you lost it.

This is why this page exists:

A Direct Debit payment has been taken and I don't recognise the organisation
http://www.bacs.co.uk/BACS/Consumers/Direct+Debit/Help+centre/Organisation+unknown/

How about cancelling direct debits - you tell the Bank, and it stops, right?

No, wrong. If the payee wants to they can just set it up again and take your money. There's no safeguard to prevent that.

[URL="javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$FAQS$Can money be collected','')"]Q. Can money be collected from my account after I have cancelled a Direct Debit Instruction? [/URL]
A. No. The organisation would have to get your authority to reinstate a cancelled Instruction.

Sounds good. But this part of the system hasn't actually been designed. Which is why you also have this page:

I cancelled my Direct Debit and a further payment has been taken

http://www.bacs.co.uk/BACS/Consumers/Direct+Debit/Help+centre/Cancellation+failed/

I could go on - have a look at the FAQ which states categorically that the system is safe, then have a look at the Help section which tells you what to do when those impossible situations occur.

I think that people should indeed be given a discount if they agree to expose themselves to direct debit payments since it's so insecure. Quite a hefty discount.

However I also think that the headline price of all goods and services should be the price that everyone pays. That way people can genuinely compare like for like.

IanRK

littleboo wrote: »

I'd agree that a discount for paying on time would be attractive. However, thats a different case from the one you were making when you said
"Looking at u-switch they're all at it now but at least gas & electric companies offer a discount for DD payments which is a much fairer system"
and the point I've been making in repsonse to that is that it isn't a fairer system at all, its the same system, either way you are charged more for not paying by direct debit.

Sorry but it isn't the same at all and I cannot see why people cannot spot the basic difference. Having re-read my statement quoted above I have missed out a few words that may have helped, it should have read - a system that gives a discount for people who pay on time whether by DD "or any other means" is a fair system. A system that actually penalises people who pay on time "by any means" is unfair. The only people I can see who would disagree with those sentiments would be the I'm Alright Jack brigade.

I have already complained to BT about this issue and despite my clearly stating that I would always pay my bill in full even if I disagreed with the extra levy and they had the endearing charm to obliquely threaten me if I did not pay.
I replied asking why it appears to be typical of large organisation that they feel it acceptable not to read customers' mail properly and send out pro forma e-mails that ignore the questions being asked and just quote the company mantras, like Mao's little red book. Doesn't that annoy everybody?
Finally one person at BT had the decency to actually read what I had written and respond accordingly and they have agreed to refund me 1 payment of £4.50 in response to my e-mails, which is a start. I have also written to OFCOM and my MP to ask them to explain why it is considered acceptable, in any way, to charge people who pay on time and in full.
I accept that I may get nowhere and be brow-beaten and buried under an avalanche of financial jargon but unless you ask you will never get anywhere