BT charges

garrence

BexTech wrote: »

By calculating the cost we apply a general policy for all payment methods that
are not automated, i.e. other then Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan to
reflect the higher risk of non-payment as well as the higher costs involved.

Uhh isn't the £7.50 late payment penalty there to cover the costs of late/non payment? Cake and eat it?

garrence

BexTech wrote: »

As a company we also have to make choices how to deal with real costs.
Is it fair to charge those who do not incur those costs?
I don't think so.

So those whose accounts are in credit should not be charged... can you PM me Mr V's email address so I can get this reply from him and respond in that manner?

Ta!

wantmemoney

BT wrote:

The fee reflects the fact that some methods of payment are more costly to process than others and is therefore based on the average cost of all our non-automated payment methods as well as the follow up costs if customers pay late or forget to pay.

Ben_Verwaayen wrote:

Is it fair to charge those who do not incur those costs?
I don't think so.

Ben Verwaayen and BT are not being completely honest (not for the first time).
Ofcom and the EU Commission have already allowed BT and the other Network Operators to cover the cost to BT for non-payment.
It's called the "Bad Debt Surcharge". We have all been paying it for years.

As far as late payment they already charge a late payment "fine".

The fact is BT are a greedy money grabbing con.

BritBrat

Thanks for the update garrence,

I was hoping you would come back with it and it's nice to see you made your point and won.

I have now made 3 seperate months payments using online banking after signing up for direct debit and no sign of any payment charge for using online banking.

Now I save a little more each month and still pay the same way I have for ages.

I may make an extra payment one month so I am also in credit as a fall back to your possition to cover me incase they do try and charge me one day.

After thought:

They did process a payment for you garrence, the one that put you in credit and I guess further payments to also put you in credit. The only good point is that when you ring up it's most likely to be a person in India you are talking to and so will be able to confuse them into removing the payment cost. I hate the indian call centers but in this case they may be of some use.

BritBrat

[quote=Ben Verwaayen]

Is it fair to charge those who do not incur those costs?
I don't think so[/quote]

Chinnu_Vamadevan wrote:

By calculating the cost we apply a general policy for all payment methods that
are not automated, i.e. other then Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan to
reflect the higher risk of non-payment as well as the higher costs involved.

The fee is not transaction-based, as this would unfairly disadvantage those who
need to pay in several small instalments. Instead the costs are averaged on a
monthly/quarterly basis across all customers using non-automated methods of
payment.

Am I reading that wrong or are they contradicting themselves.

garrence

BritBrat wrote: »

They did process a payment for you garrence, the one that put you in credit and I guess further payments to also put you in credit. The only good point is that when you ring up it's most likely to be a person in India you are talking to and so will be able to confuse them into removing the payment cost. I hate the indian call centers but in this case they may be of some use.

Correct. I made 1 advance payment to cover 2 months of service. I called after the second month's bill to prevent the argument of "it was the payment charge for the payment you just made" and getting the first month's refunded as well was, as you say, a result of confusing the Indian teletubby.

The line of attack is that they call the fee one thing (a fee for processing a payment) and then explain it as being something else (a fee for not paying by their preferred method, levied whether you have made a payment or not). They do this to avoid paying 26p VAT on the £1.50. If they have not provided the stated service then I cannot see how they can legally levy the fee.

garrence

CC: BBC Watchdog

Dear Mr Verwaayen,

I am writing to you about the "Payment Processing Fee" being charged on accounts that are in credit. I argue that you should not charge this fee when an account is in credit.

For your interest: I choose not to pay by DD owing to previous bad experiences - the worst being when a provider omitted a decimal point and debited £3000 for a £30.00 bill. Had that happened during one of my working trips to central Africa then the ramifications would be serious. I therefore choose to remain in control of my money.

To save your staff from sending me the initial cut-together standard response, I have browsed some consumer forums and collected your responses already. I will address some of your standard arguments below.

You describe the charge as a "Payment Processing Fee. This charge has been made by BT Payment Services Ltd for processing your payment. VAT is not applicable to this charge." - So it is explicitly a fee for processing a payment.

However, when queried, your staff respond that it is a fee for not paying by your preferred methods. The reason you describe the charge as a "Payment Processing Fee" and not a "non-DD fee" is so you can avoid paying 26p VAT on the £1.50 charge. This means that you must accept that it is an explicit fee for processing a payment and must therefore correspond to a payment being taken - otherwise BT would be guilty of tax evasion.

Therefore, arguments that other providers charge non-DD fees and that you have reduced line rental are interesting but peripheral to the point in question.

You argue that there is an increased risk of late payment for non-DD/MPP customers, but is this not already covered by your £7.50 late payment charge?

You argue that there is an increased risk of non payment for non-DD/MPP customers, but is this not already covered by the Bad Debt Surcharge agreed with Ofcom/EU some years ago and paid by all customers?

Again, these lead to the conclusion that the fee is for processing a payment and only for processing a payment - it is not a fee to cover late/non payers (as otherwise you would be evading tax and you have already covered those costs anyway).

I would think that BACS payments in advance would cost you less than having to collect DD payments - DD payments may be unsuccessful and lead you to chasing late or non payers! BACS payments in advance are money in the bank for you. If receiving BACS payments costs you more than DD then you are with the wrong bank!

I paid for 2 months in advance by BACS. You charged a Payment Processing Fee for both the first and second months while the account was in credit.

In a reply to another customer, you said "Is it fair to charge those who do not incur those costs? I don't think so."

I agree with you. It is not fair to charge customers whose payments cost you less to process than DD customers.

It is clearly impossible for you to argue that an account in credit costs you more than DD payments. If your aim in coercing customers on to DD/MPP is to reduce late/non payers (despite those costs being covered by your other charges) then an account being kept in credit by BACS accomplishes this aim whilst allowing customers to keep control of their money.

I therefore humbly suggest that, when an account has sufficient credit to cover the entire bill, that a Payment Processing Fee is not charged.

Essentially this will lead to customers operating their accounts in a pre-pay fashion; meet and exceed your aims for reducing late/non payers; allow you to gain interest (not costs!) on the payments; and recover from the enormous bad PR that the imposition of this fee has cost you. It would be a sound business move.

I'm interested to hear your considered response (rather than cut-together standard phrases) on this suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

garrence

Oh for heaven's sake! Sorry for the multiple posts but I just spotted a classic.

BT bill page 1: "No payment is required. Your bill is in credit. Send no payment"

BT bill page 3: "This charge... is for processing your payment"

:rolleyes:

BritBrat

Nice post again, I would have also sent a copy to the inland revenue.

I looked at my BT online account and it's paid again with no processing fee or what ever it's called.

I have a feeling this is going to get very nasty and I already know BT have lost money as they have lost £60+ from me and all because they wanted to charge me £1.50 a month.

Talk about not getting angry and geting even.

Oh for heaven's sake! Sorry for the multiple posts but I just spotted a classic.

BT bill page 1: "No payment is required. Your bill is in credit. Send no payment"

BT bill page 3: "This charge... is for processing your payment"

Could you explain that, not the double post part thats because the site lags sometimes.

garrence

BritBrat wrote: »

Could you explain that, not the double post part thats because the site lags sometimes.

They were direct quotes from two pages of my BT bill.