In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
tim (not at home) wrote:
> "Roger Mills" wrote in message
> news:63kqh6F11do76U1@mid.individual.net...
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Jethro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In this case, I suspect any court action will hinge on whether it's
>>> fair for BT to charge for non DD payments. I have a sneaking
>>> suspicion that the court will find it *is* fair, as BT will be able
>>> to demonstrate it costs them x pence a cheque, compared with y
>>> pence a Direct Debit.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that this is a cunning plan to get round that! If this
>> 'separate' company charges BT £4.50 to process a cheque, then that's
>> the cost to BT of processing a cheque - so they will claim that it
>> is "fair" to pay the cost on to the customer. But who benefits from
>> this 'charge' - the banks? No - this separate company, which just
>> happens to part of BT. IANAL, but it seems to me that the courts may
>> well still rule that to be unfair.
>
> And what's the legal basis that you think this charge needs to be
> fair?
> ITYF that there isn't one. Unlike (the claims about) Bank Charges,
> this charge is most definately a charge for a service which a
> customer can easily avoid.
>
> tim
I think you're right, in that there isn't a clear-cut one. When BT first
imposed an additional charge for non DD users there was a hell of a rumpus
about it - on BBC Watchdog and in uk.telecom - but no-one offered any
convincing evidence that it was illegal. It was pointed out at the time that
suppliers are allowed to charge different prices depending on method of
payment - such as holiday firms charging more if you pay with a credit
card - without any requirement for the additional charge to reflect the
*actual* cost to the company.
That said, BT are clearly up to *something*! Why else would they go through
this charade of creating a new company to collect this payment fee? I
suspect they fear that they could lose a court case base on fairness - maybe
citing the Unfair Contracts Act or somesuch.
Can you offer an alternative explanation for BT's action?
--
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!
|