Mike Barnes

In uk.telecom, Ivor Jones wrote:
>The problem is simple. If I choose to pay by a particular method, it
>should not cost me any more *or less* than someone paying by a different
>method.

Why not? The alternative is that those who pay the efficient way end up
subsidising those that don't. The real question is whether collecting a
payment by direct debit really costs £4.50 less than other methods.

--
Mike Barnes

Martin²

Roger Mills:
>what qualifies it to be (VAT) zero rated?

BT puts it down as "Payment processing fee" & there is no VAT on financial
services, so in a way it would be preferable for BT to charge me £1 for
phone service and £45 pp fee !!!

While you chaps are bickering I am voting with my fingers.
Last three days I spent THREE hours on the phone to BT.
I needed to end my "Call sign No." (used for voice, but not generally
available outside BT), then get my main No. (used for fax, 'cos the fax
machine ignored the call sign ring) changed to what the call sign No. was,
without suffering interruption to my non BT broadband.
Naturally BT made hash of it, first they cancelled the call sign so for a
day no one could call us, then they made the change, people could call us
again, but we could not dial out....etc.

But now I am free to move away from rip-off BT, I expect it will take me
another three hours to compare the options !
Regards,
Martin

Bill

In message <467dcb18$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
Martin² <never@give.one> writes
>
>But now I am free to move away from rip-off BT, I expect it will take me
>another three hours to compare the options !
>
Yes, no-one here seems to know of any sensible option.

I already knew that I was paying gas, electricity and other
organisations because I wouldn't let them put their hands in my till. Of
course it's efficient for them to ask me to pay for accepting my money.
It's still fraud by spin.

I've already spent more than three hours searching, asking in Tesco
about their 'service'(they didn't know) and so on, but have not found a
single straightforward provider.
--
Bill

Roger Mills

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Bill <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> In message <5e5e90F37f9inU1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
> <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> writes
>> If you want to avoid the charge, pay by DD. You have not yet
>> explained your aversion to DD - what is the problem?
>
> The basic problem is that I would have to transfer money from my
> savings into a current account that only pays something like 0.01%
> interest to cover the DD. I have to minimise the reduction in worth
> of my savings to extend the time they last. I have to make sure the
> right amount is in the account otherwise the bank tries to profiteer.

OK, but you say later on that you prefer to pay by cheque. Unless (unlikely)
you can write cheques on your savings account you will have to transfer the
money into your current account to support the cheque - so it could just as
easily support a DD without any extra effort on your part.

>
> Why is it different from the cases of the banks being challenged over
> profiteering on overdraft charges or whatever? How can it cost £4.50
> to see that a cheque payment agrees with the statement and take it to
> the bank?

The difference is that when banks impose penalties for going overdrawn
without permission, or paying your credit card bill late (in other words
breaking the T&Cs), the charges have to reflect the costs which the banks
occur as a result of your action. When it comes to charging different
amounts for different payment methods (customer choice within the specified
T&Cs) there is no such legal requirement - so they can charge what they like
as long as the customer is presented with the choice up front.

I personally think that a differential of £4.50 per quarter is way too
much - but BT obviously *really* wants you to pay by DD and is prepared to
offer a large incentive to persuade you to do so.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e5e90F37f9inU1@mid.individual.net
>>
>> Maybe you haven't noticed, but they already do! Gas and
>> electricity companies charge more to those customers who
>> don't pay by DD. Some travel firms charge more if you pay
>> for your holiday by credit card - etc.
>
> That's the credit card company, not the travel agent.
>

Of course it isn't! The travel agent chooses to pass on the charges which he
has to pay to the credit card company - but it's *his* choice. Not all
retailers (only a few - and usually only for large transactions of thousands
of pounds) do so - most just absorb it.

>
> The problem is simple. If I choose to pay by a particular method, it
> should not cost me any more *or less* than someone paying by a
> different method.
>

You are, of course, entitled to your view as to what *should* or *shouldn't*
happen. But if you want to change 'should' into 'must', you'll have to get
the law changed!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Martin² <never@give.one> wrote:

> Roger Mills:
>> what qualifies it to be (VAT) zero rated?
>
> BT puts it down as "Payment processing fee" & there is no VAT on
> financial services, so in a way it would be preferable for BT to
> charge me £1 for phone service and £45 pp fee !!!
>
That sounds like a good idea! How about just charging for the calls and
having a Payment Processing Fee instead of a line rental. They wouldn't then
need differential chaging for DD/non-DD - the VAT savings would more than
cover it!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

kkm@w3.to

In article <f5k125$8sa$1@news.datemas.de>, Kraftee <kraftee@b&e-
cottee.me.uk> writes

>Suggest you get past the semantics & try looking at the reality of
>what is actually happening & that is I'm not getting a discount
>anymore (because I pay by direct debit & no not direct from my wages)
>whilst you are paying a handling fee where in the past I was paying
>less than you because I was paying by direct debit & got a discount...

The reality of the situation is an effective 15% price increase for many
customers by the back door, either as a discount no longer given to
established DD payers or a payment fee for people who don't want to
switch to DD.

With BT's record of incorrect bills, I can see why someone wouldn't want
to pay by DD, I'm glad I don't or I could be 3.5k the poorer by now and
waiting weeks most likely for a refund.

As to the OP's original question, I don't think there is any utility
service you can now switch to, without agreeing to DD.

--
Kevin

Roger Mills

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Bill <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> In message <467dcb18$0$8717$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Martin² <never@give.one> writes
>>
>> But now I am free to move away from rip-off BT, I expect it will
>> take me another three hours to compare the options !
>>
> Yes, no-one here seems to know of any sensible option.
>
> I already knew that I was paying gas, electricity and other
> organisations because I wouldn't let them put their hands in my till.
> Of course it's efficient for them to ask me to pay for accepting my
> money. It's still fraud by spin.
>
> I've already spent more than three hours searching, asking in Tesco
> about their 'service'(they didn't know) and so on, but have not found
> a single straightforward provider.

Why not just accept that there isn't one - and find something more important
to worry about?!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Prometheus

In article <5e5h4kF37c1v7U1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> writes
>
>
>"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:5e5e90F37f9inU1@mid.individual.net
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Bill <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In message <p3qEewACMVfGFwNy@ntlworld.com>, Goalie of
>> > the Century <goalie@ntlworld.com> writes
>> > > BT will just collect any VAT and pass it on to that
>> > > nice Mr Brown. So it's a way of BT saving
>> > > their-customers-who-can't-reclaim-VAT some VAT.
>> >
>> > But it is still a ludicrous imposition. If they get
>> > away with charging me to pay them, won't everyone else
>> > start to do the same. The butcher, the baker, Tesco,
>> > the no-marks who have screwed the water industry and so
>> > on.
>>
>> Maybe you haven't noticed, but they already do! Gas and
>> electricity companies charge more to those customers who
>> don't pay by DD. Some travel firms charge more if you pay
>> for your holiday by credit card - etc.
>
>That's the credit card company, not the travel agent.

No, it *is* the travel agent, I booked a tour holiday through Thomson
and they informed that they charge extra for using a credit card, so I
paid with a debit card and was not charged extra. The following year a
booked an identical holiday directly with the tour operator who did not
charge extra for my using a credit card. It is true that the credit card
company charges the merchant a fee for transactions, but so do banks for
debit card, cheque, and even accepting cash. It is the merchant who
decides whether to absorb (disguise) or pass on the cost of accepting
payment.

>> BBC Watchdog got very exercised by this BT business a few
>> months ago - but their protest very quickly fizzled out
>> because they had failed to take account of the fact that:
>> A) BT had actually been giving a discount for paying by
>> DD for a long time, and no-one had hitherto complained
>> B) The law explicity permits businesses to charge
>> customers differently for the same service depending on
>> the method of payment which they use
>> The choice is yours. If you want to avoid the charge, pay
>> by DD. You have not yet explained your aversion to DD -
>> what is the problem?
>
>The problem is simple. If I choose to pay by a particular method, it
>should not cost me any more *or less* than someone paying by a different
>method.
>
>Personally I have no problem with DD but if someone does, it should be
>their choice not to pay by that means without penalty.

If I pay by a method that costs the payee less to process why should I
subsidize the people who use a more expensive method?
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Paul Cupis

Bill wrote:
> I just want to
> know how to get a straight telephony service (cable doesn't pass here)
> for a straight payment.

You want a basic telephony service where you don't get charged more for
paying by cheque - correct? If so, you will have to look to another
operator, as BT Retail don't appear to have such a product.

But you also say that you don't want to move away from BT...