Landmark Court case may see end to unfair bill charges

Itshim · 28-03-2008, 12:56

Surely the answer is easy to see ( look what happened to old age pensions).

a) you put the charges up to every one & make even more money.

or

B) All get charged the higher rate with a discount for paying by direct debit. Strange as it may seem its not the same thing. Its an incentive not a penalty.

haydnwalker · 28-03-2008, 13:47

Its six of one half a dozen of the other because:

Its only an incentive for those that pay by DD as if they were to pay any other way they would have to pay more.

Which is obviously penalising those that may not have a DD facility with their bank (though I think this is highly irregular these days).

Prices should be the same for all methods of payment...
I pay many things by DD but I still find it disgusting that those that don't sometimes have to pay more because of it.

frogstamper · 28-03-2008, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

Its six of one half a dozen of the other because:

Its only an incentive for those that pay by DD as if they were to pay any other way they would have to pay more.

Which is obviously penalising those that may not have a DD facility with their bank (though I think this is highly irregular these days).

Prices should be the same for all methods of payment...
I pay many things by DD but I still find it disgusting that those that don't sometimes have to pay more because of it.

I couldn't agree more, to penalise people by charging extra because they do not have DD capability is plainly unfair. Even if VM says it costs more to process non DD payments I hardly think it costs £5.

lostandconfused · 28-03-2008, 16:48

I agree that £5 is too high, but then again i havent seen how much it does cost to process a payment that isnt by DD.

However I dont want to subsidise the people that dont pay by DD as im pretty sure that the company wouldnt absorb the cost, it would be passed onto everyone else.

Chrysalis · 29-03-2008, 02:06

the prices VM and other companies charge for non DD is clearly profiteable, I read somewhere that what the companies are doing is adding up a cost of bad debt (in other words late payments unapid bills etc.) and decided to pass this cost on to people who dont pay by direct debit presumably because they more likely to be late but obviously many do pay by other methods always on time.

Ernie_C · 29-03-2008, 10:17

The case was LOST which IMHO is the correct decision.

The judge basically said that the complainant had a choice of three options:

1. Pay by DD;
2. Pay extra to pay in another way;
3. Go elsewhere.

In other words, the terms of the contract are clear. If you don't like them, go elsewhere (and stop snivelling and whinging).

Case dismissed.

DES_1001 · 29-03-2008, 10:21

And that's it, you have a choice pay or go!

Toto · 29-03-2008, 10:56

Well, there is the possibility of going higher I suppose, but that is going to cost money.

Non DD charges here here to stay, it is the most convenient way to pay.

rogermevans · 29-03-2008, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie_C

The case was LOST which IMHO is the correct decision.

The judge basically said that the complainant had a choice of three options:

1. Pay by DD;
2. Pay extra to pay in another way;
3. Go elsewhere.

In other words, the terms of the contract are clear. If you don't like them, go elsewhere (and stop snivelling and whinging).

Case dismissed.

when was it lost ?

foreverwar · 29-03-2008, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogermevans

when was it lost ?

Link

"A solicitor has lost her case against BT over what she claimed were unfair charges for the five million customers who do not pay by direct debit.

Ros Fernihough, a BT customer since the 1960s, said the £4.50 a quarter charge penalised cash-paying customers.
But Walsall County Court heard that BT had given notice of the charges which were "fair" and "perfectly reasonable".
The case was dismissed after district judge Michael Ellery decided the telecoms giant had no case to answer. "

nomadking · 29-03-2008, 13:28

If the businesses were just interested in making more money from non-DD paying customers, why are they encouraging people to pay by DD?

**Graham M** · 29-03-2008, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

said the £4.50 a quarter charge penalised cash-paying customers.

So she thinks £1.50/month is harsh?

bomb #21 · 29-03-2008, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie_C

The case was LOST which IMHO is the correct decision.

The judge basically said that the complainant had a choice of three options:

1. Pay by DD;
2. Pay extra to pay in another way;
3. Go elsewhere.

In other words, the terms of the contract are clear. If you don't like them, go elsewhere (and stop snivelling and whinging).

Case dismissed.

That case was lost. The Court heard (from BT, presumably) that the charges were "fair" and "perfectly reasonable". So all that does is beg the question ... is VM's charge (more than 3 * as much) fair & reasonable?

I have no problem with paying for paying by debit card over the phone (once a month, never late) if it costs more to process non-direct debit payments. But the principle is that the add-on should bear some relation to how much more it costs to process non-DD.

Does it costs Virgin even ½ of an extra £5 to process my payment? I highly doubt it.

lostandconfused · 29-03-2008, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomb #21

That case was lost. The Court heard (from BT, presumably) that the charges were "fair" and "perfectly reasonable". So all that does is beg the question ... is VM's charge (more than 3 * as much) fair & reasonable?

I have no problem with paying for paying by debit card over the phone (once a month, never late) if it costs more to process non-direct debit payments. But the principle is that the add-on should bear some relation to how much more it costs to process non-DD.

Does it costs Virgin even ½ of an extra £5 to process my payment? I highly doubt it.

If BT could argue that £4.50 per bill is fair, then it seems reasonable that VM could argue that £5 is fair too.

The Non DD charge is per bill, so there would be the same processing cost if it were a quarterly bill as opposed to a monthly one

bomb #21 · 29-03-2008, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

If BT could argue that £4.50 per bill is fair, then it seems reasonable that VM could argue that £5 is fair too.

The Non DD charge is per bill, so there would be the same processing cost if it were a quarterly bill as opposed to a monthly one

Depends (IMO) whether interest factors into the equation. Either way, I still highly doubt that it costs Virgin even ½ of an extra £5 to process my payment. More likely that it costs about 50p more, I'd guess.