Legality regarding UPC (NTL & Chorus) increasing their Non-Direct Debit charge

DaveBH

Sneaky Sneaky...

UPC have increased their non-direct debit fee from 2 to 3 euro.

Could the Ombudsman or Consumer Affairs maestro (Dermot J) not intervene to stop this ridiculous practice?

Rhonda9000

No.

The argument is that direct debit is less manual and thus incurs a lower cost for fee collection on the business. They are free to charge different amounts for different payment methods.

Aoibhinn

I received my latest NTL bill two days ago and was not at all surprised to see that they have increased the "non-Direct Debit" charge to 3 Euro.

Is this a sly UPC tactic to force their customers to sign up to Direct Debits and lose all control of how they pay their bills? Will they keep increasing the charge until their customers just "give up"? I suspect they will do this. The most frustrating thing about this is that there is nothing the customer can do. We either pay up or sign-up.

Also, I rang NTL to get clarification on what the 2 euro charge is for. I was told that it is cover the cost of the generation of the invoice (the bill). It is not to cover the cost of processing the payment of the bill.

NTL got this so wrong from the start. If they had said on their bill something like "did you know that you can save 2 euro on your NTL bill by paying by Direct Debit?", I don't think there would have been such an uproar from their customers. We, the customers, would have felt that we were being given a choice. There is nothing so infuriating as knowing you are being scammed and are powerless to do anything about it.

Maximilian

They probably waste a lot of time chasing people to pay unpaid bills, so its understandable how they want to coerce people into setting up Direct Debits.

The problem is the lack of competition. Many people are stuck with NTL.

Victor

Aoibhinn wrote: »

The most frustrating thing about this is that there is nothing the customer can do.

You can easily cancel your subscription.

Aoibhinn

I am sure many NTL customers are satisfied with the product they are buying from NTL and do not wish to move to an alternative supplier.

However, the issue is about a customer's right to decide how he pays his bills. NTL are one of many companies striving the remove this right.

Last year, Minister Martin tried to prevent companies from forcing customers to pay bills via direct debit over other forms of payment by passing the Consumer Protection Act 2007. However, IBEC and other business interests lobbied the Government and after consulation with the Attorney General on the legalities of the proposed bill, sections 48 and 49 (relating to "Prohibition on surcharges where one method of payment chosen in preference to another" & "Requirement that surcharge (where otherwise permissable) be stated as part of price") were not passed into law.

Also, setting up and maintaining a Direct Debit is not free. The Banks charge their customers for use of this facility.

I found this press release from February 2007 from the Consumer Association of Ireland => http://www.consumerassociation.ie/press080207.html which is an interesting read and sums up why the actions of NTL (UPC) are anti-consumer.

Rhonda9000

An concerned customer could write to IBEC and the Government about their grievances with the legislation in the area. Personally, I can totally understand why companies should be allowed incentivize more efficient payment collection in this way. The devil-may-care attitude towards making payment in good time in Ireland generally is incredible.

jhegarty

Victor wrote: »

You can easily cancel your subscription.

I take it you never tried to cancel a UPC subscription... easy is not a word that springs to mind...

Aoibhinn

DaveBH wrote: »

Sneaky Sneaky...

UPC have increased their non-direct debit fee from 2 to 3 euro.

Could the Ombudsman or Consumer Affairs maestro (Dermot J) not intervene to stop this ridiculous practice?

I queried the practice of "non-direct debit" charges by certain companies with the Consumer Association of Ireland. This is the response I received, "“The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) was enacted in April 2007. There are two sections (48 and 49) contained within the Act which specifically deal with the application of charges based on method of payment. These were not implemented as part of the CPA. The rationale behind this decision was that the Government wished to conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on these two provisions with industry. The Government plans to conduct the RIA over the coming months with a view to enacting these provisions in the near future. Until such time as these provisions are enacted, industry is allowed to maintain policies that are in place at the moment. So it seems we must continue to wait until the RIA is conducted and completed!."

dub45

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

An concerned customer could write to IBEC and the Government about their grievances with the legislation in the area. Personally, I can totally understand why companies should be allowed incentivize more efficient payment collection in this way. The devil-may-care attitude towards making payment in good time in Ireland generally is incredible.

Unfortunately the devil may care attitude of many companies towards their obligations under the direct debit system is also incredible. The direct debit system is an apalling sytem as it presently stands which totally favours the billers - there is no proper complaints procedure when a company messes you about. The only one ever sanctioned is the payer. It can cost over 25 euros to miss a dd. For example the esb and ntl charge you if you miss a dd payment (this is in addtion to any bank charges you incur0 there is absolutely no mention of these possible charges when you sign up for the direct debit.

We are being marched increasingly towards this form of payment and I feel it should be resisted all the way.

Tom Young

I'd agree that Section 48 and 49 are ill thought out. In fact I worked on blocking the activation of these sections. Competition being the main concern.

Rhonda9000

dub45 wrote: »

[/B]

Unfortunately the devil may care attitude of many companies towards their obligations under the direct debit system is also incredible. The direct debit system is an apalling sytem as it presently stands which totally favours the billers - there is no proper complaints procedure when a company messes you about. The only one ever sanctioned is the payer. It can cost over 25 euros to miss a dd. For example the esb and ntl charge you if you miss a dd payment (this is in addtion to any bank charges you incur0 there is absolutely no mention of these possible charges when you sign up for the direct debit.

We are being marched increasingly towards this form of payment and I feel it should be resisted all the way.

I have not had any problems with it. I also think it's very convenient for my needs at least.

The argument of having the system stacked so in favour of commercial interests like this is because of the popular mentality in this country -being quick to enjoy the service followed up with sheer irresponsible disinterest in paying for it- making running a business more expensive and difficult from a cash flow point of view. Added risks like these push up prices for everybody. Friends of mine from continental Europe were astonished at the amount of arrears and difficulty in debt recovery faced by Irish companies while working here.

Tom Young

The main issue I had with the legislation was that Minister Martin was trying to be re-elected at the time and was rushing through the act. Never good! In fairness some of the gurus in his department realised that there was flaws in the act.

Rhonda9000

Tom Young wrote: »

The main issue I had with the legislation was that Minister Martin was trying to be re-elected at the time and was rushing through the act. Never good! In fairness some of the gurus in his department realised that there was flaws in the act.

From a very cursory look at the legislation Tom it seems that when activated, s. 48 will block businesses charging a customer more for using one payment method over another and under 4(c) of the same section "it is immaterial that the trader can show that any expenses incurred by the trader in accepting payment by one of the relevant methods are greater than those incurred by the trader in accepting payment by another of them." It strikes me as pretty blunt to cast off a legitimate reason such as this.

Also, as these two sections seem to constrain a business from charging different prices based on payment method - will we not just find that the incentives from the customers point of view will switch from potential monetary savings to e.g. enhanced product features, periodic freebies for those opting for direct debit etc.?

Rhonda9000

My apologies it was s. 48 I was referring to above.

Perhaps businesses relying on subscriptions will think about offering only direct debit as payment from now on? At this risk of spilling an awful lot of ink on the topic, after thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that stopping the charging of different fees in relation to which payment method you choose will solve little by itself. Companies will just come at it from another angle and penalize late payment etc. more heavily than currently. I generally feel that it's usually the person not paying their bills properly is also the one moaning about the system.

Tom Young

Yes, its all about transparency! Clear ...as mud I hope

dub45

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

I have not had any problems with it. I also think it's very convenient for my needs at least.

The argument of having the system stacked so in favour of commercial interests like this is because of the popular mentality in this country -being quick to enjoy the service followed up with sheer irresponsible disinterest in paying for it- making running a business more expensive and difficult from a cash flow point of view. Added risks like these push up prices for everybody. Friends of mine from continental Europe were astonished at the amount of arrears and difficulty in debt recovery faced by Irish companies while working here.

You havent had cholera yet either but that does not mean there are no problems with it! The dd system is completely unfair and should not be in operation I dont know how the banks can stand over allowing it to operate.

Who cares what your friends think? If Irish companies cannot manage their debtor situation that is their problem. An imperfect system like the current direct debit system which is not respected by the companies should not be used as a substitute for debtor management. Irish companies do not need any excuse to push up their prices:(

Our man in Havana

The practice of using paperless DD mandates is frightening. Can you guess who uses them?
You simply cannot cancel them. All someone needs is your bank account number and sort code to empty your account and there is nothing you can do to stop it. They don't even need the correct name. The system is stacked in favour of the billers 100%.

Rhonda9000

Bond-007 wrote: »

The practice of using paperless DD mandates is frightening. Can you guess who uses them?
You simply cannot cancel them. All someone needs is your bank account number and sort code to empty your account and there is nothing you can do to stop it. They don't even need the correct name. The system is stacked in favour of the billers 100%.

Bond - could you elaborate more? Are you talking about 1 signed direct debit mandate authorising multiple debits for different amounts e.g. for the payment of a phone bill?

In banking law, the banker is under a duty not to pay without authority. It would be highly negligent for a bank to pay if it did not have a signed mandate from the account holder. A failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in checking authorised signatories resulted in the bank being obliged to re-credit the account with the amount withdrawn in Prescott Meat Co v. Northern Bank Ltd.

Our man in Havana

I mean say if I call BT in the morning to change supplier they will ask for my bank details. They then set up a paperless DD based on what I tell them. I at no point sign a paper mandate.

Most utility companies in Ireland use this system.

dub45

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Bond - could you elaborate more? Are you talking about 1 signed direct debit mandate authorising multiple debits for different amounts e.g. for the payment of a phone bill?

In banking law, the banker is under a duty not to pay without authority. It would be highly negligent for a bank to pay if it did not have a signed mandate from the account holder. A failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in checking authorised signatories resulted in the bank being obliged to re-credit the account with the amount withdrawn in Prescott Meat Co v. Northern Bank Ltd.

You do not appear to have a clue what you are talking about. With ''direct debit plus'' (oh the irony of the name because it is only a minus for the bill payer!) you are signed up over the phone or over the net - there is no signed mandate. Worse still the biller is only required to give 7 days notice. In my experience the payer is not warned about this ludicrously short period of notice when signing up.

From the ipso site:

• Direct Debit Plus, which enables Originators to:
o Sign up Originators without the customer having to sign a paper instruction

o Advance notice of 7 days is the default requirements for all debits.

In addition to the above bank staff (not to mention the staff of billing companies) are lamentably ignorant of the direct debit system. There is a disturbing lack of availability for the payer of information on the direct debit system.

It is amazing how many reports there have been on boards of bank staff refusing to cancel a direct debit at the behest of the payer despite the fact this is the prescribed way to do it under the direct debit system. There are also a disturbing number of reports of these 'hard pressed' companies reinstating direct debits and being allowed to debit peoples accounts in spite of the fact that the direct debits have been cancelled. But of course they need to be doing these type of things which some people might describe as theft because the good people of Ireland wont pay their bills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Rhonda9000

dub45 wrote: »

You havent had cholera yet either but that does not mean there are no problems with it! The dd system is completely unfair and should not be in operation I dont know how the banks can stand over allowing it to operate.

Who cares what your friends think? If Irish companies cannot manage their debtor situation that is their problem. An imperfect system like the current direct debit system which is not respected by the companies should not be used as a substitute for debtor management. Irish companies do not need any excuse to push up their prices:(

No system in this world is perfect my friend. The reason I don't get my knickers in a twist about it in the same way is because for as long as I have used it my bills have been paid more punctually and more accurately than I had managed without it in the past. Have you a bad experience you'd like to share / justify this theory that dd is "completely unfair"? Although to steal a phrase from your charming vocab ... who cares what you think...

To counter your opinion;
- Irish companies also do not need to be crippled with solvency problems at the hands of unreasonable gombeans unwilling to pay for anything.
- One of the leading excuses for raising prices are the same debtors you'd rather have free reign.
- Ultimately, you decide how to spend your own cash so vote with your feet and avoid the ones you perceive to be flagrantly collecting payment for goods / services tendered in such an abhorrent way.

dub45

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

No system in this world is perfect my friend. The reason I don't get my knickers in a twist about it in the same way is because for as long as I have used it my bills have been paid more punctually and more accurately than I had managed without it in the past. Have you a bad experience you'd like to share / justify this theory that dd is "completely unfair"? Although to steal a phrase from your charming vocab ... who cares what you think...

To counter your opinion;
- Irish companies also do not need to be crippled with solvency problems at the hands of unreasonable gombeans unwilling to pay for anything.
- One of the leading excuses for raising prices are the same debtors you'd rather have free reign.
- Ultimately, you decide how to spend your own cash so vote with your feet and avoid the ones you perceive to be flagrantly collecting payment for goods / services tendered in such an abhorrent way.

So your patronising rant conveniently ignores the point I made that you have
not got the foggiest notion what are you talking about in relation to the direct debit system.

Your only arguments appear to be sweeping insults to the Irish consumer and claims I never made. The sad thing is that it is becoming increasing impossible to obtain services without direct debit being the only type of payment permitted and it is pathetic unthinking people like yourself who buy into this type of fascist nonsense!:rolleyes:

Rhonda9000

Bond-007 wrote: »

I mean say if I call BT in the morning to change supplier they will ask for my bank details. They then set up a paperless DD based on what I tell them. I at no point sign a paper mandate.

Most utility companies in Ireland use this system.

And they do not send you a mandate to sign and return? I wasn't aware of this. Interesting. Perhaps e.g. the phone recording of the customer consenting to this is stored as evidence of authority? Payment originators traditionally submit mandates to banks to ensure that the account type is capable of fulfilling outgoing debits.

Rhonda9000

dub45 wrote: »

So your patronising rant conveniently ignores the point I made that you have
not got the foggiest notion what are you talking about in relation to the direct debit system.

Just somebody may not hold the same view as you does not mean that they do not have the foggiest notion about what it is they are talking about. What makes your opinion so authorative and qualified? Why should it be accepted as the last word on everything.

I bid you adieu!

dub45

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Just somebody may not hold the same view as you does not mean that they do not have the foggiest notion about what it is they are talking about.

In this case you demonstrably did not know what you were talking about as you subsequently admitted: (It had nothing to do with not agreeing with my views)

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

And they do not send you a mandate to sign and return? I wasn't aware of this.

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

What makes your opinion so authorative and qualified? Why should it be accepted as the last word on everything.

Again you exaggerate, seems to come very easy to you in the absence of substance. Nowhere did I claim that what I wrote should be last word on anything let alone everything:rolleyes: However what I did bother to do was check the details of the direct debit scheme. Which you didn't.

The direct debit system appears to be fine for you because it has helped you organise your finances:

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

The reason I don't get my knickers in a twist about it in the same way is because for as long as I have used it my bills have been paid more punctually and more accurately than I had managed without it in the past.

I don't particularly have any interest in what you do or don't with your clothing:rolleyes: However does the above admission mean that you were once one of those awful people that you now castigate that did not pay their bills on time in the past:D

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

...................at the hands of unreasonable gombeans unwilling to pay for anything

I would hope that rational people would be able to see beyond such a trivial defence for a very flawed system