We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Vodafone DD fee and the right to cancel
Comments
-
In addition to the contractual term to which you refer, such fees have been unlawful since 6th April 2013. The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 state:A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means.Therefore Vodafone can charge you only what it costs them to process the payment. Clearly £3.53 is a lot more than what it costs them to receive payment by bank transfer for example.
How do BT get away with imposing a £2 "payment processing fee" even if payment is made electronically? :mad:0 -
The cost is not only the bank charges but the infrastructure required to effect that payment method.exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means..
That is the overall cost to them, a fact that you also state
Not purely the bank chargesVodafone can charge you only what it costs them to process the payment. Clearly £3.53 is a lot more than what it costs them to receive payment by bank transfer for example.
Without full details of Vodafones costs it could quite legitimately argued that the admin charges are subsidised to keep the costs low.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
In the case of an incoming bank transfer, there are no costs; the trader does not need to do anything in order to receive the payment.The cost is not only the bank charges but the infrastructure required to effect that payment method.
That is the overall cost to them, a fact that you also state
Not purely the bank charges
As stated on page 12 of BIS's guidance, "The Department does not consider that indirect costs, such as general administrative overheads or staff training, should be included in the calculation of costs borne by the trader".0 -
No but trader will also need some internal method/process to deal with it that has a cost attached.
Everything that a company does has a cost to the company in some way or other. As you are quoting GUIDANCE then it is up to the OP to use the court processes to attempt to turn the guidance into 'law'.
The guidance is purely how a bunch of civil servants with minimal exposure to proper business believes things should be done and not how they must be done. Only a court of law can decide if the guidance is correct and should be adhered to.
I really wish people would not confuse guidance with law. They are only one organisation's interpretation and are no more pertinent than any other organisation's interpretation. This confusion results in situations such as you get in shops where an assistant claims its the law that you must be over 21 to buy alcohol when it started as guidance to question anybody who looked under 21.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Agreeing to something unlawful makes it neither lawful nor binding.
Clairvoyance is wonderful - but the issue is whether the changes are retrospective. They're not - as the info you reference does not explicitly state that it cannot be charged on existing contracts. It would have to, to have any bearing on the matter.0 -
To the OP - if this fee is yet to apply, can I ask why it was waived until now? All networks have been charging differing rates to profile their payments and force customers to seek the cheaper deals.
Sky was the first to introduce this, even going so far as to close their published bank account in which Internet banking users were paying into, the refusing to provide the alternative.0 -
Actually you do have a point here. Regulation 1(2) states that the regulations apply "in relation to contracts entered into on or after that date" (6th April 2013).They're not - as the info you reference does not explicitly state that it cannot be charged on existing contracts.
Maybe this is why Vodafone and other networks are continuing to charge these fees on existing contracts. However, these fees are unlawful on new contracts.0 -
To the OP - if this fee is yet to apply, can I ask why it was waived until now? All networks have been charging differing rates to profile their payments and force customers to seek the cheaper deals.
Sky was the first to introduce this, even going so far as to close their published bank account in which Internet banking users were paying into, the refusing to provide the alternative.
the fee wasn't waived specifically, the charge is a new addition to the terms and conditions as far as I know, hence the text I received.0 -
In the case of an incoming bank transfer, there are no costs; the trader does not need to do anything in order to receive the payment.
As stated on page 12 of BIS's guidance, "The Department does not consider that indirect costs, such as general administrative overheads or staff training, should be included in the calculation of costs borne by the trader".
business banking is not free, and you do get charged for receiving paymentsDon't put your trust into an Experian score - it is not a number any bank will ever use & it is generally a waste of money to purchase it. They are also selling you insurance you dont need.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards