2.5% charge on credit cards by DVLA and others - now should be scrapped

Chrysalis

I think most betting companies charge 2%+ for CC payments also.

eskbanker

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

At the late hour I posted the original topic I could not find any legislation that would back up what I had remembered being announced at the time. I wanted to see it so I could see if how it was supposed to be enforced (which it doesn't appear to be) Heres's a source of many.
Airlines, travel companies and retailers are to be banned from charging fees when people pay by credit or debit cards, ministers will announce today.

The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 you mention could well have been that legislation. Having a quick scan through it looks to have been updated to include the EU changes in 2015. You say there is no need for a government warning yet that is exactly what they did. It seems to me that we are 5 years later down the line with no progress made for consumers on CC charges apart from the costs to businesses from the CC companies falling which they are pocketing if they have not cut the charges to consumers.

What was or wasn't said in 2011 is ultimately something of a moot point - the 2012 regulations are what they are, and all traders will be measured against these rather than what Which? or the Daily Telegraph hoped for the previous year, so card surcharges clearly aren't banned even if that's what many hoped for, despite the brave but premature journalistic rhetoric about victory for consumers.

Having said that, I do agree that where there is any clear actual evidence that a trader is surcharging more than they're paying then they need to be held accountable for breaching the regulations, but this is a significantly higher threshold than you or Fairer Finance simply alleging that the intercharge cap (which affects costs between acquiring and issuing banks, not merchants) must mean that merchants are profiting by not passing on (assumed) savings.

Going back to the OP, how much do you believe DVLA are paying their acquiring bank for credit card transactions if you're asserting that the £2.50 charge is a rip-off, and on what verifiable basis do you base your view?

MiserlyMartin

And so the arguing for the sake of arguing carries on. Whatever I say in reply the banker will try to pick it apart when quite clearly this racket exists. This stops right here.

eskbanker

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

And so the arguing for the sake of arguing carries on.

No it doesn't!

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Whatever I say in reply the banker will try to pick it apart when quite clearly this racket exists.

I'm simply challenging you to back your assertions with one or two accurate facts, why is that so difficult for you?

Let me reiterate some for you:

• Despite the posturing in 2011, the 2012 regulations permit surcharging
• However, merchants can only recoup costs not make profits
• The reduction in interchange rates has nothing to do with those 2012 regs but caps costs between acquiring and issuing banks (note: *not* direct costs to merchants)
• It would be expected that lower costs should ultimately filter through to lower costs for merchants but this is a commercial market issue

Don't get me wrong, as a consumer I'm as keen as any other to see lower prices, but that doesn't make it right to be throwing round unsubstantiated accusations that an organisation charging a flat £2.50 is therefore (a) a "rip-off", (b) "unfair profiteering", (c) a "racket" or (d) failing to comply with government guidelines. However, if you're going to make those allegations, why won't you support them with some facts and a bit of cohesive logic?

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

This stops right here.

Not sure what you mean by 'this' - are you saying you're unable or unwilling to continue this discussion or are you attempting to stamp your feet and do a King Canute to try to stop card surcharges?

redux

Slightly off-topic for the credit card forum section, but I think that if the TV licence can be paid by monthly direct debit, attracting no extra fee for the instalment arrangement, then the DVLA should also be able to make no charge for monthly DD payments.

With such an option I imagine fewer people might then choose to pay by credit card.

eskbanker

redux wrote: »

Slightly off-topic for the credit card forum section, but I think that if the TV licence can be paid by monthly direct debit, attracting no extra fee for the instalment arrangement, then the DVLA should also be able to make no charge for monthly DD payments.

With such an option I imagine fewer people might then choose to pay by credit card.

Paying your TV licence by monthly DD does effectively cost the customer in real terms though, because you have to pay six months in advance and six months in arrears, which is why they levy a surcharge to pay quarterly by DD:

You pay instalments of around £37 every three months. By paying quarterly the majority of your licence is paid for as you use it. This differs from our other instalment schemes, where at least half of the licence fee is collected in advance. As a result, quarterly payments include a small premium of £1.25 per quarter which is included in your payment.

Both TV Licensing and DVLA have no surcharge for annual DD payments though....

redux

eskbanker wrote: »

Paying your TV licence by monthly DD does effectively cost the customer in real terms though, because you have to pay six months in advance and six months in arrears, which is why they levy a surcharge to pay quarterly by DD:

OK, I didn't realise that. Paying partly in advance makes it trickier. Things would get a bit too complicated for some people who only want to tax the vehicle for part of the year.

hansi

eskbanker wrote: »

Paying your TV licence by monthly DD does effectively cost the customer in real terms though, because you have to pay six months in advance and six months in arrears, which is why they levy a surcharge to pay quarterly by DD:Both TV Licensing and DVLA have no surcharge for annual DD payments though....

Does that mean that the DVLA and insurance companies will still be allowed to charge extra for paying by monthly direct debit|? The fact that most companies ask you to pay tbis way seems to me that this is the cheapest option for them. so why do they have to charge extra?

Shakin_Steve

hansi wrote: »

Does that mean that the DVLA and insurance companies will still be allowed to charge extra for paying by monthly direct debit|? The fact that most companies ask you to pay tbis way seems to me that this is the cheapest option for them. so why do they have to charge extra?

If you pay in 12 monthly instalments by DD for insurance or VED, they receive the money in a trickle over the year. Pay up front and it's theirs to invest and make money from.

eskbanker

hansi wrote: »

Does that mean that the DVLA and insurance companies will still be allowed to charge extra for paying by monthly direct debit|? The fact that most companies ask you to pay tbis way seems to me that this is the cheapest option for them. so why do they have to charge extra?

I don't think it is a fact that most companies ask you to pay by monthly DD - undoubtedly some do (and incentivise accordingly with discounts), such as utilities where there is more of a pay-as-you-go billing convention, but for those where the norm is an annual payment (e.g. VED and insurance) then spreading payments would be seen as a cost to the business.

And going back to the original subject of this thread, I'm surprised that OP hasn't triumphantly resuscitated it now that these card surcharges have been (or rather soon will be) scrapped as he was seeking!