Orange non direct debit charges

NFH

Techhead wrote: »

You first point is an unfounded assertion based on extrapolation (put less politely - guesswork

Do you have any evidence that large businesses do pay to receive bank transfers? Your comments appear to be based on guesswork, and very implausible guesswork too.

simax

NFH wrote: »

Because almost all the networks are breaching the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, which governs contracts started since 6th April 2013. Therefore a consumer has no choice between networks on these unlawful surcharges. That is why Regulation 10(a) was included - so that a consumer can take out a contract in the knowledge that such a contract term is unenforceable.

Beg to differ....

Upon reading the above, it appears that telecommunications companies are an "excluded contract" - read Section 5 (1) and then Section 2 (k)

I summarise below:

================================================

4. 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.

Contracts where prohibition applies

5. (1) Regulation 4 applies only if the use is as a means for the consumer to make payments for the purposes of a contract with the trader, and only to the extent that that contract—

(a)is a sales or service contract, or a contract (other than a sales or service contract) for the supply of water, gas, electricity, district heating or digital content, and

(b)is not an excluded contract.

(2) An excluded contract is a contract—

(a)for social services, including social housing, childcare and support of families and persons permanently or temporarily in need, including long-term care;

(b)for health services provided, whether or not via healthcare facilities, by health professionals to patients to assess, maintain or restore their state of health, including the prescription, dispensation and provision of medicinal products and medical devices (and “health professionals” has the meaning given by Article 3(f) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare)(4);

(c)for gambling within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005(5) (which includes gaming, betting and participating in a lottery);

(d)for services of a banking, credit, insurance, personal pension, investment or payment nature;

(e)for the creation of immovable property or of rights in immovable property;

(f)for rental of accommodation for residential purposes;

(g)for the construction of new buildings, or the construction of substantially new buildings by the conversion of existing buildings;

(h)which falls within the scope of Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long–term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts(6);

(i)for the supply of foodstuffs, beverages or other goods intended for current consumption in the household, and which are supplied by a trader on frequent and regular rounds to the consumer’s home, residence or workplace;

(j)concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises;

(k)concluded with a telecommunications operator through a public telephone for the use of the telephone;

(l)concluded for the use of one single connection, by telephone, internet or fax, established by a consumer;

(m)under which goods are sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law.

================================================

Therefore no network is breaching any regulation cited above.

NFH

simax wrote: »

Beg to differ....

Upon reading the above, it appears that telecommunications companies are an "excluded contract" - read Section 5 (1) and then Section 2 (k)

(k)concluded with a telecommunications operator through a public telephone for the use of the telephone;

Yes, payphones are excluded. But what is the relevance of this to a mobile phone contract?

macman

Manual payments via bank transfer are not always straightforward. For a start, a significant proportion of people who pay this way don't reference the source properly (i.e. with their a/c. no. and name), so the recipient has no idea who the payment is from. The payment cannot then be allocated properly and has to go into a suspense a/c pending tracing attempts, which are slow and costly.
I have a relative who works in revenue collection and this problem is always an issue. It applies equally where payments are made by cheque, because the bank a/c name on the cheque frequently has no relation to the a/c holders name-and the sender doesn't bother including the payment slip. Same process results.
OTOH, if you receive a DD payment, you know exactly who the payee is. Cost of collection is therefore much reduced.

simax

NFH wrote: »

Yes, payphones are excluded. But what is the relevance of this to a mobile phone contract?

Ok fair point I appear to have misread, however I'm sure if this was not allowed then they wouldn't be doing it? I can't see every communications company breaking the law like that? Sky/Virgin Media/BT etc included?

NFH

macman wrote: »

Manual payments via bank transfer are not always straightforward. For a start, a significant proportion of people who pay this way don't reference the source properly (i.e. with their a/c. no. and name), so the recipient has no idea who the payment is from. The payment cannot then be allocated properly and has to go into a suspense a/c pending tracing attempts, which are slow and costly.

It would indeed be reasonable and lawful to surcharge incorrectly made bank transfers. However, it would be neither reasonable nor lawful to surcharge a bank transfer where the payee reference is correct. In order to comply with the new legislation, businesses would need to apply any surcharge after the payment is made, not beforehand.

NFH

simax wrote: »

Ok fair point I appear to have misread, however I'm sure if this was not allowed then they wouldn't be doing it? I can't see every communications company breaking the law like that? Sky/Virgin Media/BT etc included?

Yes, they are nearly all breaking the law. This was covered on BBC Radio 4's Money Box two weeks ago (jump to 08:43). Ian Roberts, a specialist consumer finance solicitor at Pinsent Masons, explained that if a consumer has been charged these unlawful payment surcharges, they can claim them back (less the true cost to the business which will not exceed a few pence if anything). Regulation 10(b) provides for this.

Interestingly, Orange does not levy these surcharges on its business customers (which it legally could do) but it does levy surcharges on its consumer customers (which is unlawful on contracts started since 6th April 2013).

macman

NFH wrote: »

It would indeed be reasonable and lawful to surcharge incorrectly made bank transfers. However, it would be neither reasonable nor lawful to surcharge a bank transfer where the payee reference is correct. In order to comply with the new legislation, businesses would need to apply any surcharge after the payment is made, not beforehand.

I wasn't commenting on the legality or otherwise, but on the issues and consequent costs that arise from non-use of DD payments.
Adding the acc no. on a transfer, or putting the payment slip in with a cheque, is just common sense-bit nevertheless many people still don't do it.
For example, they'll put a generic reference on a transfer such as 'Council Tax'. Which will enable them to identify it, but not much help to anyone else!

NFH

macman wrote: »

Adding the acc no. on a transfer, or putting the payment slip in with a cheque, is just common sense-bit nevertheless many people still don't do it.

I totally agree. When making a payment to a large company, entering an incorrect payee reference is as bad as entering an incorrect sort code or bank account number.

Kayak10

Hey it seems I've stired up a hornets nest
Rather than reply to various separate posts I will try and cover most the valied points
The main reasons I am taking orange to task are that they ARE a susidery of EE as are t mobile They offer the none dd charge to t mobile customers as it seems that's what they had before EE took them over and as to " why didn't I query it before signing contract " I've been an orange customer for around 20 years and the non dd charge only cropped up within the last upgrade period
As to cost I ENSURE my details are correct so the payment i make is FULLY automated so NO human contact ( although if Uve had any dealings or read some of the posts on here its suspect whether the humans are human lol )
All I was hoping is if enough ORANGE customers did the same as me and objected to the UNFAIR charge then it would make orange look at this policy Especially as they are adopting more and more EE policy's towards orange being fully intergrated