Minimum Spend when using credit card

oblivion204

This may have been answered elsewhere but I can’t seem to find an exact answer.

What with the new laws on not being charged to use credit cards that have come into play I wonder where we stand with the minimum spend issue.

So I visit a local store/pub and purchase an item for £3.99
At point of sale the cashier states a minimum spend of £5 if using card (to cover cost of transaction) which can be upto £0.50

So my £3.99 item has now cost me £4.49 and no doubt I’ve just picked up a chocolate bar to take it over the £5 mark that I didn’t need !

Having worked many years ago for a large bank who issue the so called PDQ machines I read with interest at the time the contracts that stores are given to use such machines. There is nothing in there about charging additional cost to the customer to cover the cost of the supplier.

So option 1 is to walk away without purchase
Option 2 is to pay additional cost

I was once in a scenario in a pub where the barman poured a pint and then mentioned this said charge. I challenged it stating I refused to pay which he said “but the pint has already been poured out” (stalemate).
Quick thinking I said why don’t you put the cost through your system as £10 and then give me the change from the original cost. He seemed happy with this but then on reflection he lost out on the 50p charge either way!!

Most larger stores don’t bother with this issue and don’t charge the fee but smaller firms and businesses still do.

One argument to work with is the law which states the sale of any item is agreed at point of sale (rather than what is shown on the label).

I’d love to know a definitive answer to this issue. The most I found is that should a local business still insist on charging for using card by minimum spend they have to by law have a clear notice to the customer on display. Sometimes these are not so clear so worth looking for them.

Views & opinions most welcome

z1a

Option 3 - Use cash.

[Deleted User]

It's fine for them to have a minimum spend.

molerat

oblivion204 wrote: »

So I visit a local store/pub and purchase an item for £3.99
At point of sale the cashier states a minimum spend of £5 if using card (to cover cost of transaction) which can be upto £0.50

So my £3.99 item has now cost me £4.49 and no doubt I’ve just picked up a chocolate bar to take it over the £5 mark that I didn’t need !

There is no 50p charge to you for using the card so your £3.99 item still costs you £3.99. You will just have to spend that extra £1.01 to make it up to £5 worth of goods.

redpete

oblivion204 wrote: »

The most I found is that should a local business still insist on charging for using card by minimum spend they have to by law have a clear notice to the customer on display.

They are not charging for using the card, they are making sure that the profit on the transaction justifies them paying the charge.
You will pay the same for what you get regardless of how you pay.
Seems unfair on your part to try to find a way round this quite reasonable expectation.

chattychappy

oblivion204 wrote: »

One argument to work with is the law which states the sale of any item is agreed at point of sale (rather than what is shown on the label).

This is "first term law school stuff" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v_Bell). For a contract you need offer and acceptance. (Amongst other things.) It has long been held that stuff on display in a shop is not "offered". When you go to a counter, you make the offer to buy and a contract is formed when the seller agrees to sell.

You can get into endless debates about pouring pints and when a binding contract has been formed. But essentially the price is agreed at the point of sale. Hence you could argue for a discount. Or the shop could refuse the sale if something was wrongly labelled.

Trading Standards will get involved if shops are displaying wrong/misleading pricing. So if you have a minimum order value for CC, then it would be best to display this wherever you advertise you take CCs.

chattychappy

redpete wrote: »

They are not charging for using the card, they are making sure that the profit on the transaction justifies them paying the charge.
You will pay the same for what you get regardless of how you pay.
Seems unfair on your part to try to find a way round this quite reasonable expectation.

That's the problem with nanny state laws. The more you have, the more people will want.

scotsboy67

I suspect that minimum spend will go the same way as paying for wi-fi eventually will. The consumer is now demanding cashless options for all transactions (as well as free wi-fi) so retailers will have to suck it up and lobby their bank to stop charging for processing cashless payments.

Fingerbobs

I don't understand how the £3.99 item magically costs 50p extra because you've had to buy a chocolate bar in order to take your total spend above the £5 threshold?

If you bought both the £3.99 item and the chocolate bar and paid for both with cash, you'd pay exactly the same amount as if you'd paid by card.

Or am I missing something here?

Techno_Mystic

I don't know about the law, but demanding a minimum spend can be a violation of the card issuer's Terms and Conditions.  This is certainly the case for Mastercard.  You can actually report demand for a minimum spend here:

https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/consumers/get-support/report-problem-shopping.html

The wording is interesting though.  It says "Debit Mastercard or Mastercard prepaid purchase".  It doesn't mention credit cards, so it seems they can demand a minimum spend for a credit card.

jimbo26

A farm shop I use has a minimum spend, but only if you use chip & PIN, for contactless there is no minimum.