Credit card charge

MallyGirl

Worried_of_wakefield wrote: »

So this is incorrect?
"Typically between 6-10p per transaction. There's usually a fixed fee of around £20 per month but that often gives you your first 300 transactions for free. Authorisation Fees: An additional charge for every authorisation on every transaction to test the payment method. Typically around 1-3p per transaction".28 Mar 2018

This varies massively - I built a very complex IT system around such things and the variation in the real data was amazing based on different people's contracts. Pricing is based on volume so someone putting through very few transactions will be charged a lot more per item and ad_valorem (based on value) than a major supermarket chain with millions of transactions per month.

eskbanker

Worried_of_wakefield wrote: »

So this is incorrect?
"Typically between 6-10p per transaction. There's usually a fixed fee of around £20 per month but that often gives you your first 300 transactions for free. Authorisation Fees: An additional charge for every authorisation on every transaction to test the payment method. Typically around 1-3p per transaction".28 Mar 2018

You're seemingly quoting from https://www.cardswitcher.co.uk/2018/03/credit-card-charges-small-businesses-pay/ but only selectively (two out of eight) - the first item in the full list of costs, i.e. Merchant Service Charge, is the most significant, and they all need to be aggregated together to represent the total costs incurred by retailers.

They refer to a 0.7-0.9% MSC as being typical for credit cards but also a surcharge for cardholder not present (as there's increased risk when not validating the chip), but, as MallyGirl says, this varies much more widely than that narrow range....

Worried_of_wakefield

This varies massively - I built a very complex IT system around such things and the variation in the real data was amazing based on different people's contracts. Pricing is based on volume so someone putting through very few transactions will be charged a lot more per item and ad_valorem (based on value) than a major supermarket chain with millions of transactions per month.

But 3% ? I don't have a problem covering fair and reasonable charges that the retailer has to incur but the more I read these charges are no where near this and the government are considering 're-visiting' this new law as retailers are either flouting it or finding spurious ways of retaining this'hidden' profit they enjoyed for so long

sambaird

I don't disagree that it's now banned - just seeking to show the OP the other side of the story, and why a business like this may charge 3% card fee. I'm sure 3% would mean a great deal to a business like this, and having to eat that cost could be the difference between profit / loss for the year.

Mallygirl is 100% correct when pointing out that the charges differ between large and small businesses - with many small companies being charged as a percentage of the value... so yes... while it may cost Tesco a fraction of a penny for a transaction - it may cost this business up to 3%.

So... if the OP is THAT concerned... report them to Trading Standards.

eskbanker

Worried_of_wakefield wrote: »

But 3% ? I don't have a problem covering fair and reasonable charges that the retailer has to incur but the more I read these charges are no where near this and the government are considering 're-visiting' this new law as retailers are either flouting it or finding spurious ways of retaining this'hidden' profit they enjoyed for so long

I think the government has bigger fish to fry right now!

The revised regulations that came into force a year ago effectively removed the need to make a value judgement about what's fair and reasonable so the more straightforward position now is that credit card surcharges are simply banned, end of.

If you're minded to do so, you can report this venue to Trading Standards....

SuperHan

sambaird wrote: »

I don't disagree that it's now banned - just seeking to show the OP the other side of the story, and why a business like this may charge 3% card fee. I'm sure 3% would mean a great deal to a business like this, and having to eat that cost could be the difference between profit / loss for the year.

Other things that would help the business would be double booking and not giving any refunds when they can't deliver the service, not paying their staff, not providing things that have been paid for and denying consumers their statutory rights.

Luckily, the government (and EU in this case) have legislated to stop business taking advantage of consumers to increase their bottom line.


If the lady the OP is dealing with doesn't want to stomach the charge for taking credit cards, she should stop taking them. Or charge a booking fee. Or increase her prices to cover it.


No matter how much business sense it may make, she should not be breaking the law to increase her profitability.

eDicky

BBC News - Card surcharges: Customers charged hundreds illegally
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46876577

chattychappy

The real cost for small merchants is the risk of chargeback, especially for cardholder-not-present transactions.

Operators like iZettle often freeze transactions that appear out of character, demanding supporting documentation. On one occasion they froze a payment to me (it was a chip'n'pin). I produced the paperwork they required, and I got a nonsensical reply that I hadn't answered their questions. Couldn't speak to anyone and their messages were in poor English. I argued - and they released the money saying that in future I must stick to their T+Cs (which I had). Never used them again.

I think merchants should be free to surcharge cards - in the long run I think it's good for consumers and the rules as they stand have unintended consequences - eg people no longer able to pay their tax with a CC.

BUT, most people on here supported the change when it happened and it has become law.

System

I mean does it really matter? My point being, if you tell her it is illegal. The lady will just absorb the 3% fee into the total costs of goods/service. So you will end up paying the 3% anyway, it will just now be hidden into the total cost.
If people seem happier to pay it but not realise they are paying it it then fine I guess. Just odd. It's not as if you are suddenly paying 3% less for goods or services. The 3% is now just added to the original cost. Makes no difference to the consumer.

Takmon

beany_bot wrote: »

I mean does it really matter? My point being, if you tell her it is illegal. The lady will just absorb the 3% fee into the total costs of goods/service. So you will end up paying the 3% anyway, it will just now be hidden into the total cost.
If people seem happier to pay it but not realise they are paying it it then fine I guess. Just odd. It's not as if you are suddenly paying 3% less for goods or services. The 3% is now just added to the original cost. Makes no difference to the consumer.

Having just once price covering all the costs makes it much simpler for consumers when acquiring and comparing prices.

Imagine if every cost to the business was an extra it would make it much more time consuming to get the price and unnecessarily complex.

You could agree a price for the venue at say £1000 then they could say heating will be £100, electricity will be £50, Toilet rolls and Hand Soap Supplied is £15 etc. Using your argument it's "just odd" that people will pay a price with all this included and not know the cost of each element.