"Nick" wrote in message
news:63ofd5F28q8hpU1@mid.individual.net...
> tim (not at home) wrote:
>> "Jethro" wrote in message
>> news:8dc7fbc2-d302-47f6-89a7-36765ddd4f83@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 10 Mar, 21:20, "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?
>>
>> start with http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I don't need to, I already know it.
>>
>> As has been explained already, there most certainly is a difference in
>> cost between processing a DD and processing a manual payment, so a term
>> that allows BT to make a differential charge is almost certainly fair.
>>
> Where has it been explained that it cost BT more to process a timely
> direct credit than it does to process a direct debit?
somebody did it.
It's the cost of BT's staff time that's the difference, not the banking
costs
tim
|