Extra cost to use an amex

Nasqueron

lisyloo said:

sausage_time said:

You could try reporting them to Amex (or threatening the venue that you will do so).

From https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/credit-know-how/credit-card-fees/

Charges by sellers

It used to be common for sellers to charge extra for paying by credit card. But since 13 January 2018, these kinds of fees have been banned in the UK and should no longer be added to your purchase amounts. Keep in mind, though, that credit card surcharges may still be charged abroad. American Express welcomed the ban and believed this decision has created a level playing field for consumers and will give them the confidence to use the payment method of their choice.

Not really very bright to report them if you want to have your wedding there.
They are within their rights not to take Amex so not a lot you can do here I'm afraid.
If you're not having your wedding there then feel free to report to trading standards and Amex.

They are within their rights not to take AmEx, they are not within their rights to charge more for using it.

lr1277

DullGreyGuy said:

35har1old said:

Hoenir said:

Historic issue with Amex. Why the card never gained real traction in the UK. 

Merchant fees 4 to 5%

Our local Indian, a 1 restaurant place not a chain, pay 0.9% on AmEx compared to 0.75% on other credit cards (though things like Visa Infinite come with higher fees too)

If you use Zettle, SumUp etc are all things that accept AmEx at no higher rate than Visa/Mastercard etc.

Any merchant being charged 4-5% above what they are being charged on Visa etc are being fleeced in this day and age. AmEx is fractionally more these days. 


As to the OP's point, no you cannot be charged more for paying by card but forcing them not to try to isn't going to be a simple process. 

If memory serves, in the last few weeks, somebody posted about not getting their money back from the card company because they used sumup to make the payment. Something about sumup being a 3rd party payments processor, like PayPal so breaking the debtor client supplier relationship.
For a payment related to a wedding which is important, expensive and in the future, I would not use a 3rd party payments processor however low the fee is to the supplier. But I could have misremembered everything I just wrote so worth further investigation if you find yourself in this situation.

Edited to add:
As a solution pay the deposit with a non-Amex card you already have. Then apply for an Avios Barclaycard or Virgin card and use that to pay the remainder. You do run the risk you won’t get another credit card so will have to pay the remainder on a non points earning card.

DullGreyGuy

lr1277 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

35har1old said:

Hoenir said:

Historic issue with Amex. Why the card never gained real traction in the UK. 

Merchant fees 4 to 5%

Our local Indian, a 1 restaurant place not a chain, pay 0.9% on AmEx compared to 0.75% on other credit cards (though things like Visa Infinite come with higher fees too)

If you use Zettle, SumUp etc are all things that accept AmEx at no higher rate than Visa/Mastercard etc.

Any merchant being charged 4-5% above what they are being charged on Visa etc are being fleeced in this day and age. AmEx is fractionally more these days. 


As to the OP's point, no you cannot be charged more for paying by card but forcing them not to try to isn't going to be a simple process. 

If memory serves, in the last few weeks, somebody posted about not getting their money back from the card company because they used sumup to make the payment. Something about sumup being a 3rd party payments processor, like PayPal so breaking the debtor client supplier relationship.
For a payment related to a wedding which is important, expensive and in the future, I would not use a 3rd party payments processor however low the fee is to the supplier. But I could have misremembered everything I just wrote so worth further investigation if you find yourself in this situation.

The reality with credit cards is that there is always a 4th party involved, unless your Supplier is a bank, because there is the merchant account provider of the Supplier. If you look at FOS decisions on the matter they highlight the Supreme Court/House of Lords (can't remember off hand if it was pre or post creation of Supreme Court) ruling that this doesn't break the D-C-S chain. 

So the question is if SumUp, PayPal etc are just modern versions of acquiring services or are they something more and therefore a disallowed 4th party. Hence with PayPal the view is that if you pay via your account to get Buyer Protection etc then its something more and no S75 whereas pay without logging in and S75 exists. 

SumUp and Zettle (and other similars) have all come out stating they are just equivalent to merchant accounts and so S75 should apply. In that recent case on here someone found a FOS complaint decision that they are too but FOS decisions don't set precedent. 

lr1277

DullGreyGuy said:

lr1277 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

35har1old said:

Hoenir said:

Historic issue with Amex. Why the card never gained real traction in the UK. 

Merchant fees 4 to 5%

Our local Indian, a 1 restaurant place not a chain, pay 0.9% on AmEx compared to 0.75% on other credit cards (though things like Visa Infinite come with higher fees too)

If you use Zettle, SumUp etc are all things that accept AmEx at no higher rate than Visa/Mastercard etc.

Any merchant being charged 4-5% above what they are being charged on Visa etc are being fleeced in this day and age. AmEx is fractionally more these days. 


As to the OP's point, no you cannot be charged more for paying by card but forcing them not to try to isn't going to be a simple process. 

If memory serves, in the last few weeks, somebody posted about not getting their money back from the card company because they used sumup to make the payment. Something about sumup being a 3rd party payments processor, like PayPal so breaking the debtor client supplier relationship.
For a payment related to a wedding which is important, expensive and in the future, I would not use a 3rd party payments processor however low the fee is to the supplier. But I could have misremembered everything I just wrote so worth further investigation if you find yourself in this situation.

The reality with credit cards is that there is always a 4th party involved, unless your Supplier is a bank, because there is the merchant account provider of the Supplier. If you look at FOS decisions on the matter they highlight the Supreme Court/House of Lords (can't remember off hand if it was pre or post creation of Supreme Court) ruling that this doesn't break the D-C-S chain. 

So the question is if SumUp, PayPal etc are just modern versions of acquiring services or are they something more and therefore a disallowed 4th party. Hence with PayPal the view is that if you pay via your account to get Buyer Protection etc then its something more and no S75 whereas pay without logging in and S75 exists. 

SumUp and Zettle (and other similars) have all come out stating they are just equivalent to merchant accounts and so S75 should apply. In that recent case on here someone found a FOS complaint decision that they are too but FOS decisions don't set precedent. 

Perhaps. But in this case does it matter what SumUp and Zettle think? It matters what your card company thinks?
Anyway I have taken this thread off topic so getting back to the OP’s question…..

DullGreyGuy

lr1277 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lr1277 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

35har1old said:

Hoenir said:

Historic issue with Amex. Why the card never gained real traction in the UK. 

Merchant fees 4 to 5%

Our local Indian, a 1 restaurant place not a chain, pay 0.9% on AmEx compared to 0.75% on other credit cards (though things like Visa Infinite come with higher fees too)

If you use Zettle, SumUp etc are all things that accept AmEx at no higher rate than Visa/Mastercard etc.

Any merchant being charged 4-5% above what they are being charged on Visa etc are being fleeced in this day and age. AmEx is fractionally more these days. 


As to the OP's point, no you cannot be charged more for paying by card but forcing them not to try to isn't going to be a simple process. 

If memory serves, in the last few weeks, somebody posted about not getting their money back from the card company because they used sumup to make the payment. Something about sumup being a 3rd party payments processor, like PayPal so breaking the debtor client supplier relationship.
For a payment related to a wedding which is important, expensive and in the future, I would not use a 3rd party payments processor however low the fee is to the supplier. But I could have misremembered everything I just wrote so worth further investigation if you find yourself in this situation.

The reality with credit cards is that there is always a 4th party involved, unless your Supplier is a bank, because there is the merchant account provider of the Supplier. If you look at FOS decisions on the matter they highlight the Supreme Court/House of Lords (can't remember off hand if it was pre or post creation of Supreme Court) ruling that this doesn't break the D-C-S chain. 

So the question is if SumUp, PayPal etc are just modern versions of acquiring services or are they something more and therefore a disallowed 4th party. Hence with PayPal the view is that if you pay via your account to get Buyer Protection etc then its something more and no S75 whereas pay without logging in and S75 exists. 

SumUp and Zettle (and other similars) have all come out stating they are just equivalent to merchant accounts and so S75 should apply. In that recent case on here someone found a FOS complaint decision that they are too but FOS decisions don't set precedent. 

Perhaps. But in this case does it matter what SumUp and Zettle think? It matters what your card company thinks?
Anyway I have taken this thread off topic so getting back to the OP’s question…..

Ultimately it matters what the FOS or the courts think not your bank as both have the power to overrule them. 

Grumpy_chap

sausage_time said:

You could try reporting them to Amex (or threatening the venue that you will do so).

Assuming the OP still wishes to have this venue host their Wedding, it seems rather short-sighted to follow that type of route.
The OP will want the Wedding to be the perfect day that it should be and for the venue to go the extra mile to ensure that is the case.  
Engaging in discussions about use of AMEX or otherwise and complaints to third parties will not ensure the good will that may very well be so required.

Olinda99

yes, if you are going to report them to Amex the time to do it would definitely be after the wedding! 

MattMattMattUK

I would pick a different venue, if they are willing to break the law on payments then what other laws are they willing to break to make a bit more profit.

born_again

Olinda99 said:

yes, if you are going to report them to Amex the time to do it would definitely be after the wedding! 

No, it's needs doing now.
Retailer may longer be around by the time of the wedding.

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

Olinda99 said:

yes, if you are going to report them to Amex the time to do it would definitely be after the wedding! 

No, it's needs doing now.
Retailer may longer be around by the time of the wedding.

Except this is the actual wedding venue that the OP was talking about.
Bigger issues if they are not around by the time of the wedding.
(Might make it worth paying the deposit on CC and then the balance by other means.  If it was only AMEX that the venue was trying to charge extra for, can the OP use a Visa / Mastercard CC?)

Complaining ahead of the wedding comes with the real risk that the relationship with the venue is soured and tarnishes the big day.