One4all vouchers

fire_man

I found some One4all vouchers today which expired in 2008?any use now?

slimjimmc

fire_man wrote: »

I found some One4all vouchers today which expired in 2008?any use now?

Yes, you can apply to have them re-issued for a fee
http://www.one4all.ie/faq-voucher

fire_man

slimjimmc wrote: »

Yes, you can apply to have them re-issued for a fee
http://www.one4all.ie/faq-voucher

Thanks

dubnozzle

One4all - <SNIP>. They don't just expire, <SNIP> EUR 1.45 per month after 12 months. Avoid.

Kenny Bania

dubnozzle wrote: »

One4all - <SNIP>. They don't just expire, <SNIP> EUR 1.45 per month after 12 months. Avoid.

Explain how clearly written T&Cs qualify as <SNIP>!? You think an expiry date is just displayed as a joke?

delahuntv

The OP has paper Vouchers - no monthly fee applies to them, so just the re-issue fee will apply.

The monthy fee after 12 month is there because there is a charge applied by mastercard/visa for the number used by the card. There's a set number of card numbers and these are reused constantly. So the charge is there both because there's a cost associated with the number and also to encourage you to use it.

Cinsidering the number of outlets that acceot the card, its not that difficult to use it unless you forget about it. In that case its a bonus to find something available.

A new card "Me2You" is launching next month - it will be accepted in more outlets than One4all as they are charging far less commission to retailers - its operated by the Retail umbrella group Retail Excellence Ireland.

3DataModem

There is no cost associated with a visa or MasterCard number.

delahuntv

3DataModem wrote: »

There is no cost associated with a visa or MasterCard number.

Can you show where you get this?

Or is it just BS?

My info comes from an investment prospectus prepared by an international accountancy group which outlines costs involved in pre-paid / gift cards.
The fees charged by visa/mastercard depend on number of cards issued and their useage time. It is also called a reference charge. Its not huge, but if a card has €2 left on it and is never spent, it would become a loss making card for the issuer.

3DataModem

My information comes from managing the card payments volume for one of the largest online merchants, and also setting up a card issuing programme for a prepaid visa and MasterCard in a variety of jurisdictions.

Issuers may charge their partners (eg Perfect Card may charge Dundrum Centre a monthly fee, but it's nothing to do with Visa or MasterCard scheme fees).

Card issuers pay schemes for some transactions. Card acquirers pay schemes for some transactions. But schemes don't charge issuers for issuance.

Although I could be wrong, I'm probably not.

delahuntv

And perfectcard pay?????

Visa / mastercard are not charities.

Visa/mastercard charge a fee based on number of cards issued and usage.

whiterebel

One4All tried telling me that they were obliged under an EU directive to charge €1.45 per month after 12 months on their cards. When I asked for the relevant section in the Directive they backed off, having "made a mistake". The card has an expiry date of 2018, but they start charging their admin fee after 12 months.

Mr. D

Did you know?

Little-known One4All gift-card Rip-Off: after 18 months stagnating on the recipient's desk or kitchen table, the company starts charging €1.45 per month.

That's on top of the €8 charge for reactivating a card that a forgetful recipient allows to go beyond its 12-month expiry.

Yes, yes, of course. No one should be silly enough to miss the 12-month expiry. But hey, half the human population is organised and mindful of such things, and the other half isn't. Amongst that other half are people you know and love, people with qualities other than being mindful about gift-card expiry dates. The objective of the One4All company is to screw those people.

Scenario: I buy a €50 One4All gift card for you. Because I love you.

You thank me. You and I feel warm and content with the world, and you think for a while about how you might buy something special with that €50 -- before putting the card away somewhere safe. Until the right time.

And then, unfortunately, you forget about it, re-find it two years later. In order to access the €50 I gave you, you must now pay the €8 re-activation fee, plus 6 months in maintenance charges (€8.70).

That nice €50 I gave you has turned into €33.30.

Why didn't I just give you a greeting card with a €50 note inside?

The One4All company markets a product whose sole purpose is to profit from human frailty. They are not, of course, alone in this, but their product is absolutely without question one that no one -- but no one -- actually needs.

Just put cash in a greeting card.

Only my opinion.

coylemj

Mr. D wrote: »

Just put cash in a greeting card.

And lose all of it as it passes through <SNIP>?

dudara

The service fee charged by One4All is well known and discussed many times in this forum already.

Threads merged

jahalpin

whiterebel wrote: »

One4All tried telling me that they were obliged under an EU directive to charge €1.45 per month after 12 months on their cards. When I asked for the relevant section in the Directive they backed off, having "made a mistake". The card has an expiry date of 2018, but they start charging their admin fee after 12 months.

It is actually the Revenue Commissioners who are making gift card issuers etc. charge admin fees, this is so that they can collect tax on the value of the card, if no admin charge was levied the outstanding value of credit not redeemed would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet forever and no tax would be paid on this outstanding balance

Example
X buys giftcard in 2010 for 100euro. X then spends 92euro within the first few months leaving a balance of 8euro on the card. If no admin charge was levied the 8euro would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet until the balance was used (the balance may never be used so the Revenue will get no tax from this transaction)

If there was an admin charge of 2.50 pa on the outstanding balance, the Revenue would receive tax on the 2.50 admin charge and the value of the liability in the balance would reduce by 2.50.

While taken in isolation this figure looks very small, however, if a company issues thousands of cards every year and most people do not use the full balances on the cards then the overall taxable amount could be quite high

MarkAnthony

Spent 19 of the little buggers in Powercity Coolock the other day. Nice one Powercity for opening another till because my employer has a sense of humour in relation to little fun bonuses!

sconhome

jahalpin wrote: »

It is actually the Revenue Commissioners who are making gift card issuers etc. charge admin fees, this is so that they can collect tax on the value of the card, if no admin charge was levied the outstanding value of credit not redeemed would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet forever and no tax would be paid on this outstanding balance

Example
X buys giftcard in 2010 for 100euro. X then spends 92euro within the first few months leaving a balance of 8euro on the card. If no admin charge was levied the 8euro would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet until the balance was used (the balance may never be used so the Revenue will get no tax from this transaction)

If there was an admin charge of 2.50 pa on the outstanding balance, the Revenue would receive tax on the 2.50 admin charge and the value of the liability in the balance would reduce by 2.50.

While taken in isolation this figure looks very small, however, if a company issues thousands of cards every year and most people do not use the full balances on the cards then the overall taxable amount could be quite high

Not quite clear on how that works.

The €92 spent in your example would be taxed via VAT and accounted for in the returns made by the business in which the card was used.

Are you saying that the card issuer makes no return until the card is completely empty?

Is this why they make it so hard to find out at a terminal exactly how much is outstanding on the balance? Is it €8 or €7.99 remaining, so in essence if a card was spent all bar the last 1c the issuer would have been 'exempt' from taxation on the €100 earned in the first place?

VincePP

jahalpin wrote: »

It is actually the Revenue Commissioners who are making gift card issuers etc. charge admin fees, this is so that they can collect tax on the value of the card, if no admin charge was levied the outstanding value of credit not redeemed would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet forever and no tax would be paid on this outstanding balance

Example
X buys giftcard in 2010 for 100euro. X then spends 92euro within the first few months leaving a balance of 8euro on the card. If no admin charge was levied the 8euro would remain as a liability on the issuers balance sheet until the balance was used (the balance may never be used so the Revenue will get no tax from this transaction)

If there was an admin charge of 2.50 pa on the outstanding balance, the Revenue would receive tax on the 2.50 admin charge and the value of the liability in the balance would reduce by 2.50.

While taken in isolation this figure looks very small, however, if a company issues thousands of cards every year and most people do not use the full balances on the cards then the overall taxable amount could be quite high

what an absolute and complete load of rubbish.

whiterebel

sconhome wrote: »

Not quite clear on how that works.

The €92 spent in your example would be taxed via VAT and accounted for in the returns made by the business in which the card was used.

Are you saying that the card issuer makes no return until the card is completely empty?

Is this why they make it so hard to find out at a terminal exactly how much is outstanding on the balance? Is it €8 or €7.99 remaining, so in essence if a card was spent all bar the last 1c the issuer would have been 'exempt' from taxation on the €100 earned in the first place?

Argos told me it works the same as a debit card, and that they can't access the balance on it for that reason. Not sure how accurate that is. Sounds plausible.