3's non DD payment €4.50 surcharge - becomes illegal on Thursday!

Solair

For those of you who are angry about your 3 bill pay €4.50 or NTL/Chorus €2.50 surcharge for using methods of payment other than DD : you may be interested to know that the Consumer Protection Bill 2007 is expected to be signed into law on Thursday. Keep an eye on the news! I've been in touch with my local TDs about the issue over the last few days and they've been keeping me up-to-date with the progress of the bill.

This outlaws the non DD penalty fees, along with a lot of other sharp practices.

It'll be interesting to monitor how companies comply with the new law.

Aren't general elections great!

If you are charged €4.50 after this passes into law for not paying by DD, I would suggest that you challenge it.

Urban Weigl

Perhaps I don't quite get this, but what's so great about this? DD is safe, and everyone has a bank account.

It's only fair for companies to charge you an extra fee for not paying by direct debit, after all it also costs them more. That being said, I don't think doing so is a very customer orientated approach. I think it would make more sense to give customers a discount for paying by direct debit. Margins will go down a little bit, but I prefer the carrot approach to the stick. Same as is being done with online billing, where some companies pass on the savings to you for not sending out a paper bill every month.

Urban Weigl

Like in this particular case, keep the price at €29 for 200 minutes, but enter customers who pay by direct debit into a prize draw every month, or give them €2 off each bill as a little "thank you".

It doesn't have to be a lot, all it has to be is a little token of appreciation, but I think customers would value it. I know I would. Perhaps get creative and combine it with online billing.

But what do I know?

Random

Can't they just start "charging you less" for Direct Debit instead?

Solair

They can give you a disscount for paying by DD.

However, it's not fair to charge a penalty fee for not paying by DD and it comes across as extremely nasty and bad PR.

There are other methods of payment that don't cost them anything. E.g. payment by online banking.

NTL levy the fee and still send paper bills anyway!

E.g. I have a major issue with using it as I have been messed around very badly by one or two providers... inaccurate bill amounts being taken out etc etc.

In the case of 3, you get a paper bill anyway - yet they charge €4.50 per month for not paying by DD.

Yggr of Asgard

Urban Weigl wrote:

Perhaps I don't quite get this, but what's so great about this? DD is safe, and everyone has a bank account.

It's only fair for companies to charge you an extra fee for not paying by direct debit, after all it also costs them more. That being said, I don't think doing so is a very customer orientated approach. I think it would make more sense to give customers a discount for paying by direct debit. Margins will go down a little bit, but I prefer the carrot approach to the stick. Same as is being done with online billing, where some companies pass on the savings to you for not sending out a paper bill every month.

I like to see my bill before I decide to pay it. I do a lot of roaming and several times I have been wrongly charged and there were problem with my bill.

Now if I allow them to deduct the amount they claim I owe them every month I have to run after my money, this way I complain, pay what is really due (with credit card to protect me) and that's that.

DD is great for fixed amounts but not for flexible amounts, they can take what every they claim is correct and the so called DD guarantee is a joke, lat time my bank said, they won't reverse an incorrect DD, that must come from the originator.

Solair

Well, I had a double DD taken by 3 by accident and AIB had absolutely no problem reversing it!

The problem is where there's a billing error i.e. when you're disputing something you can't hold on to the payment.

Most organisations now give you a couple of weeks notice between the date the statement goes out and the date they take the DD.

Even so, I don't like them!

Sam Vimes

Urban Weigl wrote:

Perhaps I don't quite get this, but what's so great about this? DD is safe, and everyone has a bank account.

if we are to believe him, bertie ahern didn't have one when he was finance minister

Urban Weigl wrote:

It's only fair for companies to charge you an extra fee for not paying by direct debit, after all it also costs them more.

the new law doesn't agree with you

Urban Weigl wrote:

Like in this particular case, keep the price at €29 for 200 minutes, but enter customers who pay by direct debit into a prize draw every month, or give them €2 off each bill as a little "thank you".

money off for paying by DD is the same as money added for not paying by DD. the only difference would be they'd have to advertise the higher price. it would still be in violation of the legislation afaik

po0k

I was charged the 2.50 by NTL for the first bill, before they sent by a DD mandate form as I had ordered over the phone.
I rang their accounts dept. and got it refunded.

Blaster99

Urban Weigl wrote:

Perhaps I don't quite get this, but what's so great about this? DD is safe, and everyone has a bank account.

DD is safe alright. When I signed up for Esat Digifone (which I presume used a similar billing system as BT Ireland does now) and used DD, they never credited my account and added every bill onto last month's bill and despite talking to them about this for two months they couldn't figure out how to fix it. It got quite pricey after 4-5 months. With DD you're in the hands of the company you're paying. Any disputes and you have to prove to them that they're wrong. I also much prefer to pay the invoice when it suits me, not within the pathetic 14 days that most companies mandate. It's not as if they pay their bills within 60 days.

Urban Weigl

Blaster99 wrote:

DD is safe alright. When I signed up for Esat Digifone (which I presume used a similar billing system as BT Ireland does now) and used DD, they never credited my account and added every bill onto last month's bill and despite talking to them about this for two months they couldn't figure out how to fix it. It got quite pricey after 4-5 months. With DD you're in the hands of the company you're paying. Any disputes and you have to prove to them that they're wrong. I also much prefer to pay the invoice when it suits me, not within the pathetic 14 days that most companies mandate. It's not as if they pay their bills within 60 days.

All you have to do in such a case is contact your bank. They can and will (they're obliged to) reverse the charges.

Blaster99

All I have to do in such a case is not use DD.

cgarvey

Urban Weigl wrote:

All you have to do in such a case is contact your bank. They can and will (they're obliged to) reverse the charges.

But what when they say they are a 3rd party (facilitator) in the DD agreement, and do not have the authority to cancel it, redirecting you to the vendor? Even when you protest, they might say that that's the way it is and that IPSO will tell you the same (which they certainly used to).

Urban Weigl

cgarvey wrote:

But what when they say they are a 3rd party (facilitator) in the DD agreement, and do not have the authority to cancel it, redirecting you to the vendor? Even when you protest, they might say that that's the way it is and that IPSO will tell you the same (which they certainly used to).

They're obliged not to allow further charges, and if any happen, to reverse them as well. I think after the whole AIB incident, which was all over the news not that long ago, they're quite happy to do it. If they don't, notify the financial regulator and whoever is responsible.

This whole system was put in place to make DD safe.

parsi

I think if you look through past threads about BT you will find that what the banks say and what the banks do about DD is quite divergent. AIB certainly refused to cancel a DD on my Visa card despite the printed publications which suggested otehrwise.

DD generally works well and is ideal if you have a reliable originator. But once you get to the stage where you are querying bills you are over a barrell - tehy have the money.

Solair

If you write to your branch instructing them to cancel the DD, or call in in person. They MUST cancel it.

The originator's mandate to collect funds from your account's cancelled. They may continue trying, but the bank will just refuse any further requests.

It's tidier if the originator cancels it, but if you're really having issues, you can do it from your end at the local branch.

You're simply withdrawing their mandate to collect funds from your account.

The bank will simply return a message : NO MANDATE or Invalid request to the originator if they try to claim funds.
No further info is given.

----

The bank can refund / reverse where the originator has claimed funds multiple times etc.
However, if there's a dispute between you and the originator, then it becomes a little messier.
It's not advisable to deal with companies like that via DD !!
If you don't trust that they've cancelled a DD, write to your branch!!

Arathorn

I've been having on ongoing dispute with NTL over my bill for the last 3 months, they are awful to deal with and have terrible procedures in place (one guy emails another department to sort something out, of course this just gets lost with no tie in to the original complaint) if I had direct debit they would be taking whatever they wanted. Direct Debit is great if a company is reliable and has good customer service, unlike the mess that is NTL. Its still not sorted going into month 4, at least im not paying them so they can chase me now rather than the other way round

BuffyBot

AIB certainly refused to cancel a DD on my Visa card despite the printed publications which suggested otehrwise.

A recurring charge to a credit card is not the same as direct debit from a bank account, so the rules surrounding them differ.

Urban Weigl

BuffyBot is correct. A recurring transaction on a credit card is not the same as a DD from your bank account. The rules for DD do not apply.

BrianD

dublin-texas wrote:

I like to see my bill before I decide to pay it. I do a lot of roaming and several times I have been wrongly charged and there were problem with my bill.

Now if I allow them to deduct the amount they claim I owe them every month I have to run after my money, this way I complain, pay what is really due (with credit card to protect me) and that's that.

DD is great for fixed amounts but not for flexible amounts, they can take what every they claim is correct and the so called DD guarantee is a joke, lat time my bank said, they won't reverse an incorrect DD, that must come from the originator.

Generally, you do see your bill before the amount is deducted - there's always a line that x amount will be deducted from your account on y date. It's up to the individual to check its accuracy.

I can understand why companies want to use DD but I'm not sure if the surcharge for non-DD is the way to go. I'd imagine that within a few years they only way new subscribers will be able to have any sort of a telecoms account is pre-pay or DD.