BT taken to court over non direct debit charges

gt94sss2

All Basic Bank accounts allow direct debits.

Its not necessary to have a variable direct debit, if it helps someone can have an agreed/fixed amount taken each month instead.

Though, I have to say I think that the 'poorest in society' are often the best at managing their cashflow..

The basic point is that there is no difference between 'a charge' for not paying by direct debit or a 'discount' for paying by direct debit.

I do agree that some of the fees for not paying by direct debit - i.e. Virgin media's £5/month seem excessive but that is a different issue..

Regards
Sunil

BritBrat

I don't think most people including myself would mind paying what it costs to tranfer the money in other ways other than direct debit.

But it cant cost £1.50/£4.50 can it? If a monthy cost is £1.50 why does it cost three times as much for the same transaction quarterly?

I would guess online banking costs very little to make the payment.

That is what Martin missed on Wednesday, he just said that is the way it is today pay up and shut up (my own words), why did he not say the same about bank charges?

Because it was wrong, now myself and lots of others who paid their bills and never got bank charges will have to pay for all those claiming them back. I am beginning to wonder if Martins higher profile with his TV program is going to cost some of us a lot of money in that he is telling everyone the secrets that people post on here, maybe we need to stop letting them know how we save money so we can continue to do so for longer.

Just another thought and not a dig at Martin as I am sure he does it for the best intentions even though it may come back and bite us.

gt94sss2

BritBrat wrote: »

I don't think most people including myself would mind paying what it costs to tranfer the money in other ways other than direct debit.

But it cant cost £1.50/£4.50 can it? If a monthy cost is £1.50 why does it cost three times as much for the same transaction quarterly?

I would guess online banking costs very little to make the payment.

The bank charges issue is different in that it may be that they qualify as 'a penalty' which could be against a specific regulation.

I think most members of the public would like it if businesses decided their pricing on a set formula - something like cost + 20% but that is not how businesses work. Simply put the cost of provision has very little to do with the price of a product in most cases.

For instance, when your local Indian/Chinese restaurant charges £1.50 for some rice which costs them 10p or so - people don't refuse to pay or when the supermarket adds on to the small print of your receipt that 2.5% is going to a separate company (owned by them) as you chose to pay by card..

Likewise, people don't complain when a utility company (or BT) called it a direct debit discount..

I imagine that BT could lower that £1.50/month quite a bit if they reduced the number of payment methods they accepted - in particular, if they stopped accepting payments at post offices (which I think are very expensive for BT)

Re: bank charges I agree - I suspect a lot of people who never paid any charges will now be worse off when the dust has settled.. as they would be if some ruling said that direct debit discounts/charges were not permitted..

In BT's case, I also partly blame the advertising standards people - I imagine one of the reasons why BT introduced this change was so they could advertise the lower figure* against their competitors, many of whom only accept direct debits and quote that price in comparisons.

Regards
Sunil
(*which over 50% of their residential customers were already paying)

Drunkstar

gt94sss2 wrote: »

In BT's case, I also partly blame the advertising standards people - I imagine one of the reasons why BT introduced this change was so they could advertise the lower figure against their competitors, many of whom only accept direct debits and quote that price in comparisons.

Regards
Sunil

Exactly what I belive.

Mr_McGoo

I'll join the non Direct Debit payers who have had enough of the incompetence of large companies such as BT who cannot get it right, and then drag their feet on putting matters right, starting always with the arrogant assumption that the customer must be wrong, so that the customer has to prove the opposite..

The Guarantee works in the end, but both banks and the large companies make it difficult and time-consuming.

Setting up SO's for repetitive payments on-line is easy and effective and you stay in control. Otherwise I pay on-line when I get an invoice. The only DD's I pay are for unique services that I want badly enough to overcome my dislike, and I know that sooner or later I'll have to spend days trying to correct an error.

I'm not with BT, so their "Payment Processing Fee" scam doesn't affect me, and nor does their new charge of 75p per month for sending you a bill. But I would leave BT tomorrow if I were with them now, and can only recommend everyone to do the same. Out there in the non-BT world it's cheaper, easier and stress-free. Try it!

Yes, you're right, I hate BT. Arrogant, inefficient, wasteful exploiters of their UK exchange and line network monopoly, a public asset that was handed over to BT for for nothing. And now they are using that asset to extort money from all telephone users, directly or indirectly, to pay for their Management's grandiose ambitions to become world players.

littleboo

Mr_McGoo wrote: »

Yes, you're right, I hate BT. Arrogant, inefficient, wasteful exploiters of their UK exchange and line network monopoly, a public asset that was handed over to BT for for nothing. And now they are using that asset to extort money from all telephone users, directly or indirectly, to pay for their Management's grandiose ambitions to become world players.

Oh dear ! Still bitter and twisted and blaming BT for government actions of nearly 25 years ago. Move on.

Mr_McGoo

Ah, Mr Littleboo, you've misunderstood.

I'm aganist BT for their actions this week, last week and next week.

They continue to use the asset they were handed for virtually nothing, all those years ago, to extort money from that asset's previous owners, the public.

That isn't history, it's what they are still doing today. You don't get the benefit, BT's shareholders do. And that isn't the public.

It's because people lie down supinely, muttering things like "It's time to move on" that BT say when tackled to deflect criticism, that BT gets away with it.

Do you work for BT, too?

For a definition of extortion try tbis. Our neighbour's 27 year old son is handicapped with a problem that prevents mental development. He has been given a flat nearby (10 miles) which allows him some independence, and he is benefiting hugely from this. His life revolves around looking after himself and the flat, and on the internet which he uses, although he can barely read, to run his collection of a certain kind of model; this keeps him happy and absorbed. When next door he shared our wireless network for his ADSL access. The family is very short of money. As well as internet access, a landline phone is vital for him so that his mother can speak to him daily, and so that he can call when he has a problem he cannot solve, as he does from time to time. They were told by BT that only BT could reconnect the line that was already there, and they had no option but to pay the full re-connection charge to BT, as well as signing up for Option 1 at least. They have decided to use a much, much cheaper supplier for the rental, phone service and broadband package he needs, whereupon BT hit them with a bill for £70 or so "cancellation charge". Total cost so far over £200, just to get an exisiting line reconnected. His mother came round distraught, in tears, asking if we could help deal with BT. Short answer is no; the response we got was a blank, brick wall of stolid indifference in India. "These are the charges, take it or leave it. You've taken it so you have to pay" sums up the reply. Can we talk to a manager in the UK? No. Can we have a number to ring? No.

Of course a savvy, street-smart family could have avoided all this. But they are not savvy or street-smart, like a lot of the population, and this is what BT deliberately exploits so successfully.

Drunkstar

Fingers crossed this goes well for the woman, I agree that companies shouldnt charge for taking non DD payments.
That said however, while other companies are still allowed to take customers ONLY on DD then I cant see the situation improving. It should be a level playing ground.

gt94sss2

Mr_McGoo wrote: »

They continue to use the asset they were handed for virtually nothing, all those years ago, to extort money from that asset's previous owners, the public.

That isn't history, it's what they are still doing today. You don't get the benefit, BT's shareholders do. And that isn't the public.

1. BT is not a monopoly.
2. BT shareholders paid for the network.
3. Since then, BT has paid billions in tax revenue so taxpayers do benefit from BT doing well.
4. BT has also replaced most of its network since privatisation (apart from the local loop) - it had too.. the network was in a very poor state and the reason for privatisation in the first place was that the government didn't want to spend the money itself. (perhaps you don't remember waiting months to have new lines installed?)
5. It has replaced 35% of its core network (including exchanges) in the last 2 years alone and plans to replace the reminder by 2011/12 - which will then be the most advanced core network in the world and costs around £10bn to do
6. BT offered to install fibre nationwide many years ago but the government said no..

.. and no - I don't work for BT.

Regards
Sunil

Mr_McGoo

gt94sss2

!. Please tell me who, other than BT, will provide a telephone line to my house? And before you talk about cable, please note that I, along with huge swathes of the populaton have no cable access and never will have.

2. BT Shareholders paid a tiny fraction, repeat tiny, of what the network was worth. It was a steal.

3 The argument that because BT pay tax it's all OK is so flawed it's pointless. Whose money do you think they pay taxes with? Our taxed income paid to them as charges, of course.

4 The same applies to the replacement. If you steal a car you don't absolve yourself by replacing it 10 years later!

5 Ditto re core network.

6 BT offered to install the fibre-optic network if the taxpayer (aka the Government) paid for it! I made them the same offer, but that was rejected too, so I didn't, just like BT..

Can we avoid posts from BT employees pushing BT's spin?