¥x¥_«°³ù°Ó°È¤¤¤ß(¤½¥q³]§},Á{®É¿ì¤½«Ç,¤p«¬¿ì¤½«Ç¥X¯²)                  
¥x¥_¥«©¾§µ¦è¸ô¤@¬q33¸¹7¼Ó 2314-3916. 0937-278205 ©P¸g²z               
¡¹µêÀÀ¿ì¤½«Ç¡]¤½¥q³]§},¤½¥q³]Äy¡^:3500¤¸/¤ë                           
¡¹¿W¥ß­Ó¤H¤u§@«Ç:7000¤¸                                               
¡¹2¤H¿W¥ß¿ì¤½«Ç:14000¤¸                                               
¡¹4¤H¿W¥ß¿ì¤½«Ç:24000¤¸                                               
(¥]§t:ºÞ²z¶O.¤ô¹q¶O.§N®ð.¿ì¤½³]³Æ.¤½¥qµn°O.¯ù¤ô.·|ij«Ç¨Ï¥Î)           
http://home.doramail.com/taisun222/                                   
http://taisun222.byethost12.com/                                      
http://www.taisun222.axspace.com/

I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to pay a
penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure that processing
my payment costs them something.  So I will in future always pay by
cheque posted to them, I have used online / electronic payment for many
years (Before Internet!).

I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within minutes. 
I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I am sure he know
that what I was saying was true though I know there is nothing that he
can do about it apart from log the complaint.


MB

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:31303030303731354849572444@invalid.invalid...
>I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to pay a
> penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure that processing
> my payment costs them something.  So I will in future always pay by
> cheque posted to them, I have used online / electronic payment for many
> years (Before Internet!).
>
> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within minutes.
> I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I am sure he know
> that what I was saying was true though I know there is nothing that he
> can do about it apart from log the complaint.
>
But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As DD 
customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
Stephne

Stephen Wray wrote:
> "MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:31303030303731354849572444@invalid.invalid...
>> I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to
>> pay a penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure
>> that processing my payment costs them something.  So I will in
>> future always pay by cheque posted to them, I have used online /
>> electronic payment for many years (Before Internet!).
>>
>> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within
>> minutes. I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I
>> am sure he know that what I was saying was true though I know
>> there is nothing that he can do about it apart from log the
>> complaint.
> But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As DD
> customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
> Stephne

Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:31303030303731354849572444@invalid.invalid...
>I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to pay a
> penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure that processing
> my payment costs them something.  So I will in future always pay by
> cheque posted to them, I have used online / electronic payment for many
> years (Before Internet!).
>

These still cost more to process than DD. With DD you get the cash on the 
day and list of "no pays" to chase. With any thing else you get a list of 
payments and have to work out who hasn't....

> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within minutes.
> I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I am sure he know
> that what I was saying was true though I know there is nothing that he
> can do about it apart from log the complaint.
>
>

Do you pay your other bills in thsi way. One of my mates said that he wasn't 
charged a surcharge for paying his Gas and Electricity by cheque. He didn't 
half get a shock when he checked the web sites...

> MB

The message 
from "Dave Wade"  contains these words:


> "MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:31303030303731354849572444@invalid.invalid...
> >I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to pay a
> > penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure that processing
> > my payment costs them something.  So I will in future always pay by
> > cheque posted to them, I have used online / electronic payment for many
> > years (Before Internet!).
> >

> These still cost more to process than DD. With DD you get the cash on the 
> day and list of "no pays" to chase. With any thing else you get a list of 
> payments and have to work out who hasn't....


There will be some electronic payments that arrive late but probably the
majority arrive on time especially if a discount is given for early
payment as happens with other utilities.  I suspect there are also a
proportion of Direct Debits that go wrong.  I doubt that there is a BT
man sitting at a desk checking off the payments in the ledger with a
quill pen, both payments will be checked in the background by their
computer system.  If they wish then they can surcharge for late payment
though I would think other utilities' method of discounting early
payment is better.

I know they have charged for years but the charge bears no relation to
the cost to BT.



> > I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within minutes.
> > I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I am sure he know
> > that what I was saying was true though I know there is nothing that he
> > can do about it apart from log the complaint.
> >
> >

> Do you pay your other bills in thsi way. One of my mates said that he
> wasn't 
> charged a surcharge for paying his Gas and Electricity by cheque. He didn't 
> half get a shock when he checked the web sites...


The electricity supplier give a discount for early payment which I
nearly always do online in plenty of time.  

What's gas?  :=)

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:31303030303731354849E13C19@invalid.invalid...
> > Do you pay your other bills in thsi way. One of my mates said that
he
> > wasn't
> > charged a surcharge for paying his Gas and Electricity by cheque.
He didn't
> > half get a shock when he checked the web sites...
>
>
> The electricity supplier give a discount for early payment which I
> nearly always do online in plenty of time.

Yeah, but the DD discount will be much bigger.

--
Andy

"kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
news:aKCdnW10k_qTKNTVnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...
> >> I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have
to
> >> pay a penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure
> >> that processing my payment costs them something.  So I will in
> >> future always pay by cheque posted to them, I have used online /
> >> electronic payment for many years (Before Internet!).
> >>
> >> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within
> >> minutes. I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I
> >> am sure he know that what I was saying was true though I know
> >> there is nothing that he can do about it apart from log the
> >> complaint.
> > But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As
DD
> > customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
> > Stephne
>
> Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)

It seems this didn't bother people. Missing out on the DD discount
never seemed to bother those who don't like DD's, but a surcharge
does, even if the end result is the same!!

--
Andy

"Stephen Wray"  wrote in message 
news:VM-dnYp3_aBIDdTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

>>
> But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As DD 
> customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
> Stephne

When you get a discount do you normally part with money?

I discount is a discount a payment charge is a charge, with one you pay more 
money with the other you get a refund.

They are not the same thing.

Are they?


By the way, I pay using online banking and I have no payment charges and 
have not done for over a year.

I just told them I would pay by DD but only once have they used it.

So do not get angry get even.

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:31303030303731354849572444@invalid.invalid...
>I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have to pay a
> penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure that processing
> my payment costs them something.  So I will in future always pay by
> cheque posted to them, I have used online / electronic payment for many
> years (Before Internet!).
>
> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within minutes.
> I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I am sure he know
> that what I was saying was true though I know there is nothing that he
> can do about it apart from log the complaint.
>
>
> MB

I forgot to add, not only do I avoid the payment charge and still pay using 
online banking I also took all my calls away from BT.

They lost between £40 - £70 a month from me and all because they wanted to 
charge me for paying on time using online banking.

I even though I still pay the same way I always did I now get a £1.50 
reduction as I ticked the DD box.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot BT.

And now my bills are a lot cheaper anyway, I have had free evening and 
weekend calls for over a year with no monthly cost and bills are normally 
below 50p.

I also use another provider 18185 for daytime calls and mobiles, bill are 
normally around £6 - £7.

Then I have BT line rental now around £12.

Total now £20 a month where before it was £40 - £70.

So to sum up me = winner and BT = loser :)

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:54:56 +0100, "It's Me"  wrote:

>I forgot to add, not only do I avoid the payment charge and still pay using 
>online banking I also took all my calls away from BT.
>
>They lost between £40 - £70 a month from me and all because they wanted to 
>charge me for paying on time using online banking.
>
>I even though I still pay the same way I always did I now get a £1.50 
>reduction as I ticked the DD box.

Earlier you mentioned that BT took payment from your bank account by
direct debit on one occasion.  Presumably you have a DD in place with
them, but choose to make an electronic payment before they collect.

This seems a bit pointless to me, but it obviously keeps you and BT
happy.  Presumably, if you forget to manually make an electron payment
BT will simply collect it by DD, so it's not really much skin off
their nose.

>I also use another provider 18185 for daytime calls and mobiles, bill are 
>normally around £6 - £7.
>
>Then I have BT line rental now around £12.
>
>Total now £20 a month where before it was £40 - £70.
>
>So to sum up me = winner and BT = loser :)

Using alternative and cheaper providers seems like a sensible decision
to me.  I'm not sure what the direct debit issue has to do with it.

How do you pay for 18185?  Last time I look they took payment by
direct debit or continuous credit/debit card authority.  Given the
choice, I would always opt for DD because it guarantees an immediate
refund if anything goes wrong.
-- 
Martin Jay

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:29:56 +0100, Martin Jay
 wrote:

[snip]
>Earlier you mentioned that BT took payment from your bank account by
>direct debit on one occasion.  Presumably you have a DD in place with
>them, but choose to make an electronic payment before they collect.
>
>This seems a bit pointless to me, but it obviously keeps you and BT
>happy.  Presumably, if you forget to manually make an electron payment
>BT will simply collect it by DD, so it's not really much skin off
>their nose.
>

If that is what is happening, then  after 13 months with no collection
via the DD, the bank  (from which BT debits) *may* cancel the DD. It
will have become *dormant*.   No one is informed that the DD has gone
dormant. Should an attempt then be made to debit money it will be
refused. 

It is  up to BT (in this scenario) to recognise that the DD may have
become dormant and resubmit the request to the paying bank before they
can debit any further payments. Or recognise that the DD has been
cancelled and bill the user for not having a DD. 

I'd bet money that BT's sytems can't handle this. It has happened to
me on a couple of occasions with nationally known UK companies, though
not BT.

-- 
brightside S9

In news:6av0c1F3a2bleU1@mid.individual.net,
Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:
: "kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
: news:aKCdnW10k_qTKNTVnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...

[snip]

: > > But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As
: DD
: > > customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
: > > Stephne
: >
: > Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)
:
: It seems this didn't bother people. Missing out on the DD discount
: never seemed to bother those who don't like DD's, but a surcharge
: does, even if the end result is the same!!

A discount to one group of customers is effectively a surcharge to the 
remaining customers, however you choose to word it.

One group (who pay the way you want them to) pay less, the others pay 
more.

Or you could look at it this way - whether it is a discount or a surcharge 
could depend on the way the tariff is advertised. "£10 per month with £1 
off if you pay by DD" is a discount. "£9 per month but a quid extra if you 
*don't* pay by DD is a surcharge.

How are these tariffs actually advertised..?


Ivor

"brightside S9" <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote in message 
news:fu6l44lh1g8u4itp341qgbgdqlaohofdbu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:29:56 +0100, Martin Jay
>  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>Earlier you mentioned that BT took payment from your bank account by
>>direct debit on one occasion.  Presumably you have a DD in place with
>>them, but choose to make an electronic payment before they collect.
>>
>>This seems a bit pointless to me, but it obviously keeps you and BT
>>happy.  Presumably, if you forget to manually make an electron payment
>>BT will simply collect it by DD, so it's not really much skin off
>>their nose.
>>
>
> If that is what is happening, then  after 13 months with no collection
> via the DD, the bank  (from which BT debits) *may* cancel the DD. It
> will have become *dormant*.   No one is informed that the DD has gone
> dormant. Should an attempt then be made to debit money it will be
> refused.
>
> It is  up to BT (in this scenario) to recognise that the DD may have
> become dormant and resubmit the request to the paying bank before they
> can debit any further payments. Or recognise that the DD has been
> cancelled and bill the user for not having a DD.
>
> I'd bet money that BT's sytems can't handle this. It has happened to
> me on a couple of occasions with nationally known UK companies, though
> not BT.
>
> -- 
> brightside S9

Interesting point.

Would I get charged?

I will give that some thought.

The point I was making was I always paid using online banking and paid more 
than DD customers, now I still pay as I always did but I also get the DD 
reduction.

Yes if I failed to pay they would use the DD and it did happen has I paid a 
little late one month but ended up paying twice, so the next month I had to 
pay 2p.

This system also works with prepayment cards.

Yes the other providers I use take DD but everyone is the same, they do not 
charge anyone more that the other as they all use the DD system.

Why should we have to pay more for paying on time no matter whether they get 
cash, cheque or DD.

It's called principles and BT's principles cost them a lot of money from me 
and saved me money, so thanks BT.

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6avtb8F39hgqmU1@mid.individual.net...
> : > > But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit.
As
> : DD
> : > > customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
> : > > Stephne
> : >
> : > Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)
> :
> : It seems this didn't bother people. Missing out on the DD discount
> : never seemed to bother those who don't like DD's, but a surcharge
> : does, even if the end result is the same!!
>
> A discount to one group of customers is effectively a surcharge to
the
> remaining customers, however you choose to word it.

Of course.

> One group (who pay the way you want them to) pay less, the others
pay
> more.
>
> Or you could look at it this way - whether it is a discount or a
surcharge
> could depend on the way the tariff is advertised. "£10 per month
with £1
> off if you pay by DD" is a discount. "£9 per month but a quid extra
if you
> *don't* pay by DD is a surcharge.

Yup - but the numpties get all hot under the collar about the latter
but not the former.

DD discounts on gas/electric are massive compared to BT's DD surcharge
for instance, but nobody seems to complain about this.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:
> "kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:aKCdnW10k_qTKNTVnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> I was just paying my BT bill and finally decided that if I have
>>>> to pay a penalty for not using Direct Debit then I will make sure
>>>> that processing my payment costs them something.  So I will in
>>>> future always pay by cheque posted to them, I have used online /
>>>> electronic payment for many years (Before Internet!).
>>>>
>>>> I EMailed a complaint to them and got a phone call back within
>>>> minutes. I felt sorry for the Customer Services person because I
>>>> am sure he know that what I was saying was true though I know
>>>> there is nothing that he can do about it apart from log the
>>>> complaint.
>>> But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit. As
>>> DD customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
>>> Stephne
>>
>> Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)
>
> It seems this didn't bother people. Missing out on the DD discount
> never seemed to bother those who don't like DD's, but a surcharge
> does, even if the end result is the same!!

Exactly just changing the labels has produced all these grumblings, nothing 
has actually changed.

Andy Pandy wrote 
 on Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:54:13 +0100 in message  
 : 

>
>"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
>news:6avtb8F39hgqmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> : > > But you've always had to pay more for not using direct debit.
>As
>> : DD
>> : > > customers used to get £1.00 a month off rental.
>> : > > Stephne
>> : >
>> : > Shhhhhh don't tell him that, it's supposed to be secret ;-)
>> :
>> : It seems this didn't bother people. Missing out on the DD discount
>> : never seemed to bother those who don't like DD's, but a surcharge
>> : does, even if the end result is the same!!
>>
>> A discount to one group of customers is effectively a surcharge to
>the
>> remaining customers, however you choose to word it.
>
>Of course.
>
>> One group (who pay the way you want them to) pay less, the others
>pay
>> more.
>>
>> Or you could look at it this way - whether it is a discount or a
>surcharge
>> could depend on the way the tariff is advertised. "£10 per month
>with £1
>> off if you pay by DD" is a discount. "£9 per month but a quid extra
>if you
>> *don't* pay by DD is a surcharge.
>
>Yup - but the numpties get all hot under the collar about the latter
>but not the former.
>
>DD discounts on gas/electric are massive compared to BT's DD surcharge
>for instance, but nobody seems to complain about this.


Exactly, up until recently the difference could be £200+ difference for
paying gas and electricity by Direct Debit compared to cash / cheque.

There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are clueless
when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or live beyond your
means.

-- 
http://www.bhxforums.co.nr

In news:uqlo44d89cvfs945r91p8733fkcl6vvtl3@4ax.com,
{{{{{Welcome}}}}}  typed, for some 
strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

: There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are
: clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or live
: beyond your means.

Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be (effectively) 
penalised for making that choice.

Ivor

> In news:uqlo44d89cvfs945r91p8733fkcl6vvtl3@4ax.com, {{{{{Welcome}}}}}
>  typed, for some strange, unexplained
> reason:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are :
> clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or live :
> beyond your means.

There are some very good reasons and many of them come down to security. 
I don't tend to feel that giving anyone full access to my bank account is 
a wise idea.

Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite numerous 
calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my policy they 
decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium using a 12 
month old direct debit mandate. This resulted in over £1200 being taken 
from my account without my authority. This then meant there were 
insufficient funds to cover my mortgage and other scheduled payments 
which resulted in a number of fee's being applied for bouncing them. It 
took nearly 2 weeks to get that money back and I am still fighting to 
recover the fees.

Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one way. 
They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like from my 
wallet'.

The message <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
from Klunk  contains these words:


> Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one way. 
> They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like from my 
> wallet'.



Exactly, I just do not like to trust other people and organisations with
access to my bank account especially when you consider all the major
blunders there have been by supposedly responsible organisations.

I can manage my payments to be on time and if I am late then they can
penalise me.  Organisations like BT like to portray the accounting
system as if there are humans involved but we all know that it is all
automated and a human will only be involved at a late stage in any late
or non-payment.  They like to say get people to be "green" and go
paperless but will still regularly post out advertising material, they
say how "green" they are but post a return envelope with every bill even
to people who always pay online.

MB

In article <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Klunk
 wrote:

> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance.
> Despite numerous calls and letters to them saying I did
> not want to renew my policy they decided it would be
> fine and dandy to collect the premium using a 12 month
> old direct debit mandate.

So, why had you not already cancelled the DD in favour of
Tesco?

Do it online and it takes a matter of seconds.

Any problems I have ever had with DDs have been due to them
being cancelled when they should not have been, so that
payments I was expecting would be made were, in fact, not
made.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:33:30 +0100, Russell Hafter News passed an empty
day by writing:

> In article <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Klunk
>  wrote:
> 
>> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite
>> numerous calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my
>> policy they decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium
>> using a 12 month old direct debit mandate.
> 
> So, why had you not already cancelled the DD in favour of Tesco?

If I am having to cancel agreements because the company can't be trusted 
it follows that it is best to avoid DD all together.

On 09 Jun 2008 10:03:44 GMT, Klunk  wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:33:30 +0100, Russell Hafter News passed an empty
>day by writing:
>
>> In article <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Klunk
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite
>>> numerous calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my
>>> policy they decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium
>>> using a 12 month old direct debit mandate.
>> 
>> So, why had you not already cancelled the DD in favour of Tesco?
>
>If I am having to cancel agreements because the company can't be trusted 
>it follows that it is best to avoid DD all together.


 Not at all. Just contact * your*  bank and ask them to return the
money as stipulated by the DD uarantee.  

The problem is to get the customer facing dimwits in most banks to
realise that the problem has to be sorted by them, there and then.
They will fob you off with all sorts of bullshit. Just keep asking for
their manager, you will eventually fiind one who knows how to
implement the DD guarantee.

-- 
brightside S9

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:52:30 +0100, brightside S9 passed an empty day by
writing:

> On 09 Jun 2008 10:03:44 GMT, Klunk  wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:33:30 +0100, Russell Hafter News passed an empty
>>day by writing:
>>
>>> In article <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Klunk
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite
>>>> numerous calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my
>>>> policy they decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium
>>>> using a 12 month old direct debit mandate.
>>> 
>>> So, why had you not already cancelled the DD in favour of Tesco?
>>
>>If I am having to cancel agreements because the company can't be trusted
>>it follows that it is best to avoid DD all together.
> 
> 
>  Not at all. Just contact * your*  bank and ask them to return the
> money as stipulated by the DD uarantee.
> 
> The problem is to get the customer facing dimwits in most banks to
> realise that the problem has to be sorted by them, there and then. They
> will fob you off with all sorts of bullshit. Just keep asking for their
> manager, you will eventually fiind one who knows how to implement the DD
> guarantee.

It was not the *customer facing dimwits* that took money they were not 
entitled to, was it. The *customer facing dimwits* were most helpful in 
sorting it out - manager included. Tesco did not want to give the money 
back as it happens trying to hang on to it as hard as they could. 

The DD Guarantee did not cover me, as it happens. In particular "an 
immediate money back guarantee from the bank or building society if an 
error is made" only works out if the company admits the error in the 
first place. A disputed amount and an error are two very different things.

They said they had permission to take the money as they had a live DD 
mandate. I said they did not as I had not agreed (in fact I had declined) 
service with them for another year.

If you are happy to use DD, then good for you. I've stopped using it from 
everything now. Even the internet (good ole Zen) is done monthly with 
online banking.

"Klunk"  wrote in message
news:484d2347$0$2487$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>>> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite
> >>>> numerous calls and letters to them saying I did not want to
renew my
> >>>> policy they decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the
premium
> >>>> using a 12 month old direct debit mandate.
> >>>
> >>> So, why had you not already cancelled the DD in favour of Tesco?
> >>
> >>If I am having to cancel agreements because the company can't be
trusted
> >>it follows that it is best to avoid DD all together.
> >
> >
> >  Not at all. Just contact * your*  bank and ask them to return the
> > money as stipulated by the DD uarantee.
> >
> > The problem is to get the customer facing dimwits in most banks to
> > realise that the problem has to be sorted by them, there and then.
They
> > will fob you off with all sorts of bullshit. Just keep asking for
their
> > manager, you will eventually fiind one who knows how to implement
the DD
> > guarantee.
>
> It was not the *customer facing dimwits* that took money they were
not
> entitled to, was it. The *customer facing dimwits* were most helpful
in
> sorting it out - manager included.

If they didn't immediately refund you then you were being fobbed off
by them.

> Tesco did not want to give the money
> back as it happens trying to hang on to it as hard as they could.

So? It's irrelevant what Tesco want - you simply insist the bank give
you your money back. I've used the DD guarantee 3 times in similar
circumstances. Dealing with Tesco is the bank's problem.

> The DD Guarantee did not cover me, as it happens. In particular "an
> immediate money back guarantee from the bank or building society if
an
> error is made" only works out if the company admits the error in the
> first place.

Rubbish. The company must tell you at least 2 week in advance of the
amount they are going to take or any change to a regular payment. If
they don't, they have broken the rules and you are entitled to an
immediate refund *from your bank*. And the bank must refund first and
ask questions later.

> A disputed amount and an error are two very different things.

If they send you a bill with an incorrect amount, and say they'll
collect that incorrect amount in 2 weeks, then if you let them collect
you are not entitled to a refund under the DD guarantee, AIUI. But 2
weeks should normally give you enough time to cancel the DD if you
can't sort it out with them.

> They said they had permission to take the money as they had a live
DD
> mandate.

Irrelevant. They must have informed you of the amount they were going
to take at least 2 weeks in advance.

> I said they did not as I had not agreed (in fact I had declined)
> service with them for another year.
>
> If you are happy to use DD, then good for you. I've stopped using it
from
> everything now. Even the internet (good ole Zen) is done monthly
with
> online banking.

Do you have a debit card? Credit card? Any retailer anywhere can
charge these, and you'll have much more difficulty getting your money
back on an incorrect debit/card payment than from an incorrect DD.

--
Andy

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6b3522F39esqgU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:uqlo44d89cvfs945r91p8733fkcl6vvtl3@4ax.com,
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}}  typed, for some
> strange, unexplained reason:
>
> [snip]
>
> : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are
> : clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or
live
> : beyond your means.
>
> Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
(effectively)
> penalised for making that choice.

Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.

The "choice" is not just one-sided.

--
Andy

"Klunk"  wrote in message
news:484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are
:
> > clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or
live :
> > beyond your means.
>
> There are some very good reasons and many of them come down to
security.
> I don't tend to feel that giving anyone full access to my bank
account is
> a wise idea.

If you've got a debit card then every retailer in the world that takes
card payments has "full access" to your bank account.

Of course you'll get your money back if they put a "cardholder not
present" transaction through and they can't prove you authorised it,
but it won't be immediate and it'll be much more hassle than claiming
on the DD guarantee.

> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite
numerous
> calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my policy
they
> decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium using a 12
> month old direct debit mandate. This resulted in over £1200 being
taken
> from my account without my authority. This then meant there were
> insufficient funds to cover my mortgage and other scheduled payments
> which resulted in a number of fee's being applied for bouncing them.
It
> took nearly 2 weeks to get that money back and I am still fighting
to
> recover the fees.
>
> Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one
way.
> They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like
from my
> wallet'.

Complete bullshit.

I've paid about 8-10 bills a month by DD for the last 15 years or so.
About 1,500 DD payments. I've arranged them to all come out just after
payday, so all I need to do is check my account once a month. I've had
very few problems (about 3 or 4) and they were all sorted with a 3 min
phone call to the bank to demand my money back immediately. Piece of
piss.

Much easier than pissing around sending payments - it'll be a lot more
hassle getting your money back if you get that wrong. Someone I know
put a space in the reference number he was given, because the ref no
he was told to use had a space. The payment went missing because of
this and it took him a couple of months and loads of phone calls to
get it sorted.

--
Andy

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:46:11 +0100, Andy Pandy passed an empty day by
writing:

With respect to you I am unable to read your response. The layout is such 
a mess that I gave up.

Indeed Tesco's had given me notice. I had telephoned them, and written to 
them believing telling them I was not renewing. In hindsight I should 
have closed down the DD, but as use(d) them for home insurance too, 
closing that off would have meant they could not collect.

I am happy I was not fobbed off at all. I tend to feel that my small 
business bank manager, whom I have known as a friend for more years than 
I can recall, is most likely to give me the best and correct advice as 
opposed to a usenet poster trying to argue the toss over Direct Debit.

As far as credit and debit cards go yes, I have them. I never use them 
for anything at all other than cash withdrawal. When I need to use a card 
online I stick with a pre-paid Virgin Mastercard and add funds to it for 
just that transaction. It may seem an expensive and quirky way to do it - 
but that is how I operate.

There is no valid argument for direct debit being of any benefit to the 
customer. The idea of 'set it and forget it' is clearly abused by some 
companies. If a company needs to give you a couple of weeks notice before 
they call for funds by direct debit then they might as well send a paper 
bill! Perhaps they could then give you a discount for prompt payment via 
online banking. The amount is direct and to the same account, but the 
control stays with the customer.

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:3130303030373135484D029073@invalid.invalid...
> The message <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
> from Klunk  contains these words:
>
>
>> Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one way.
>> They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like from my
>> wallet'.
>
>
>
> Exactly, I just do not like to trust other people and organisations with
> access to my bank account especially when you consider all the major
> blunders there have been by supposedly responsible organisations.
>
> I can manage my payments to be on time and if I am late then they can
> penalise me.  Organisations like BT like to portray the accounting
> system as if there are humans involved but we all know that it is all
> automated and a human will only be involved at a late stage in any late
> or non-payment.  They like to say get people to be "green" and go
> paperless but will still regularly post out advertising material, they
> say how "green" they are but post a return envelope with every bill even
> to people who always pay online.

So the hundreds people that work in the receipting team in Durham & London, 
allocating payments made by cheque etc are figments of the imagination?

Stephen

"Klunk"  wrote in message
news:484d83dd$0$26084$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:46:11 +0100, Andy Pandy passed an empty day
by
> writing:
>
> With respect to you I am unable to read your response. The layout is
such
> a mess that I gave up.

Get a decent newsreader then. It looks fine on mine.

> Indeed Tesco's had given me notice. I had telephoned them, and
written to
> them believing telling them I was not renewing. In hindsight I
should
> have closed down the DD, but as use(d) them for home insurance too,
> closing that off would have meant they could not collect.

On the same DD?

> I am happy I was not fobbed off at all. I tend to feel that my small
> business bank manager, whom I have known as a friend for more years
than
> I can recall, is most likely to give me the best and correct advice
as
> opposed to a usenet poster trying to argue the toss over Direct
Debit.

Some bank staff are completely clueless. I suspect in most cases they
simply don't know the rules.

> As far as credit and debit cards go yes, I have them. I never use
them
> for anything at all other than cash withdrawal.

So? The mere possession of a debit card is like giving every retailer
that takes them a DD. In fact it's worse - a disputed debit card
transaction will be more hassle than a disputed DD.

> When I need to use a card
> online I stick with a pre-paid Virgin Mastercard and add funds to it
for
> just that transaction. It may seem an expensive and quirky way to do
it -
> but that is how I operate.
>
> There is no valid argument for direct debit being of any benefit to
the
> customer. The idea of 'set it and forget it' is clearly abused by
some
> companies. If a company needs to give you a couple of weeks notice
before
> they call for funds by direct debit then they might as well send a
paper
> bill!

Er, yes. But the customer doesn't have to do anything, except check.

> Perhaps they could then give you a discount for prompt payment via
> online banking. The amount is direct and to the same account, but
the
> control stays with the customer.

You are in control with DD. Some people will never believe it though
and prefer to waste their life doing things the hard way.

--
Andy

MB wrote on 09/06/2008 :
> The message <484cc587$0$2484$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
> from Klunk  contains these words:
>
>
>> Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one way. 
>> They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like from my 
>> wallet'.
>
>
>
> Exactly, I just do not like to trust other people and organisations with
> access to my bank account especially when you consider all the major
> blunders there have been by supposedly responsible organisations.

Don't be silly. It' not one way. It's the only electronic payment 
method I know that is completely fool proof if there's a mistake - one 
call to the bank & the money's back in your account.

The message 
from "Stephen Wray"  contains these words:

> So the hundreds people that work in the receipting team in Durham & London, 
> allocating payments made by cheque etc are figments of the imagination?


The envelopes will be opened by a machine, all they will do is enter the
details from the cheque into the system and even that might well be done
by OCR with them just checking it.  If a payment is late then a computer
system will note that, send out a reminder if necessary and only
escalate to a human if that is then ignored.

Do you believe that they have people typing out the bills and putting in
envelopes?

I previously paid online, I would think that payment was completely
"untouched by human hand" and just went straight into the BT coffers
with their computer system checking that it had been received.  

If they are processing online payments by hand then there is something
seriously wrong with BT management.

MB

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:35:31 +0100, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:
>Don't be silly. It' not one way. It's the only electronic payment 
>method I know that is completely fool proof if there's a mistake - one 
>call to the bank & the money's back in your account.
Sorry but to call a bank cost time and money standing orders yes no
problem but DD's no unless absolutely necessary .
With a standing order no one as access to your bank account except you
and the bank with a DD any company can take what they want ok I know
it can be reclaimed but that involves time and money . Like someone
else stated here earlier I never use my visa cards in any stores or
supermarkets it is just as easy to get cash out of the ATM before
going into a supermarket and paying cash . From a security handle it
is safer also you have no one at the checkout watching you type in
your pin and I never draw cash from an ATM when there is anyone in the
immediate area of the ATM .

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:41:53 +0100, Andy Pandy passed an empty day by
writing:
> 
> Get a decent newsreader then. It looks fine on mine.

I think PAN on linux, and even looking at it in TIN is pretty much 'a 
decent newsreader'.

I look at the headers and I see the problem:

''X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914''
At that point, I realise I have been talking to a clueless troll.

PLONK

In news:4facaaa5a9see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid,
Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> typed, for some 
strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Any problems I have ever had with DDs have been due to them
: being cancelled when they should not have been, so that
: payments I was expecting would be made were, in fact, not
: made.

That happened to me twice recently when I switched banks. The DD transfers 
didn't happen and my internet access and car insurance both got 
cancelled..! Sorted with a short phone call in each case but irritating 
just the same, especially when my internet went off in the middle of 
checking my online bank details ;-)

Ivor

In news:6b5cb1F395dq8U1@mid.individual.net,
Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:
: "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
: news:6b3522F39esqgU1@mid.individual.net...
: > In news:uqlo44d89cvfs945r91p8733fkcl6vvtl3@4ax.com,
: > {{{{{Welcome}}}}}  typed, for some
: > strange, unexplained reason:
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you are
: > : clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and /or
: live
: > : beyond your means.
: >
: > Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
: (effectively)
: > penalised for making that choice.
:
: Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.

I doubt they cost as much extra as the customer is charged.

: The "choice" is not just one-sided.

Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me pay how I 
want. As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect people's right 
to pay how they want without penalty.

Ivor

"Klunk"  wrote in message
news:484e0cc5$0$2478$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:41:53 +0100, Andy Pandy passed an empty day
by
> writing:
> >
> > Get a decent newsreader then. It looks fine on mine.
>
> I think PAN on linux, and even looking at it in TIN is pretty much
'a
> decent newsreader'.

Except it can't read news, according to you.

> I look at the headers and I see the problem:
>
> ''X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914''
> At that point, I realise I have been talking to a clueless troll.

Yawn.

--
Andy

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6b7r01F3amqhbU1@mid.individual.net...
> : > : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you
are
> : > : clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and
/or
> : live
> : > : beyond your means.
> : >
> : > Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
> : (effectively)
> : > penalised for making that choice.
> :
> : Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.
>
> I doubt they cost as much extra as the customer is charged.

So what? A phone call won't necessarily cost as much as is charged.

> : The "choice" is not just one-sided.
>
> Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me pay how
I
> want.

Quite, and if they don't, they'll up their prices till you move
elsewhere. It's what happens in a free market.

> As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect people's right
> to pay how they want without penalty.

If you are selling something, do you respect people's right to pay you
exactly how they want? Or do you want a say in how you get paid?

--
Andy

The message 
from "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> contains these words:

> : > Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
> : (effectively)
> : > penalised for making that choice.
> :
> : Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.

> I doubt they cost as much extra as the customer is charged.



If BT is paying their bank anything like the charge they are passing on
to the customer for non-DD payments then it would indicate incompetence
on the part of the management.

If the BT internal system costs that much to process an online payment
then it means they are very inefficient and someone should be sacked.


MB

In news:6b7u8cF3ao746U1@mid.individual.net,
Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:
: "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
: news:6b7r01F3amqhbU1@mid.individual.net...
: > : > : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless you
: are
: > : > : clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management and
: /or
: > : live
: > : > : beyond your means.
: > : >
: > : > Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
: > : (effectively)
: > : > penalised for making that choice.
: > :
: > : Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.
: >
: > I doubt they cost as much extra as the customer is charged.
:
: So what? A phone call won't necessarily cost as much as is charged.

So it's unfair, that's what. I believe the word is profiteering.

: > : The "choice" is not just one-sided.
: >
: > Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me pay how
: I
: > want.
:
: Quite, and if they don't, they'll up their prices till you move
: elsewhere. It's what happens in a free market.

It's hardly free if it costs me money..!

: > As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect people's right
: > to pay how they want without penalty.
:
: If you are selling something, do you respect people's right to pay you
: exactly how they want? Or do you want a say in how you get paid?

I don't sell things very often (occasionally on eBay) but I don't care 
much how I get paid as long as I get the money. What's your point..?

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6bcb73F397kloU1@mid.individual.net...
> : > : > : There's no reason for not paying by Direct Debit unless
you
> : are
> : > : > : clueless when it comes to budgeting and money management
and
> : /or
> : > : live
> : > : > : beyond your means.
> : > : >
> : > : > Even so, if someone chooses not to use DD they should not be
> : > : (effectively)
> : > : > penalised for making that choice.
> : > :
> : > : Why not? Some payment methods cost more than others.
> : >
> : > I doubt they cost as much extra as the customer is charged.
> :
> : So what? A phone call won't necessarily cost as much as is
charged.
>
> So it's unfair, that's what. I believe the word is profiteering.

What, companies aren't allowed to make profits?

> : > : The "choice" is not just one-sided.
> : >
> : > Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me pay
how
> : I
> : > want.
> :
> : Quite, and if they don't, they'll up their prices till you move
> : elsewhere. It's what happens in a free market.
>
> It's hardly free if it costs me money..!

Duh...

> : > As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect people's
right
> : > to pay how they want without penalty.
> :
> : If you are selling something, do you respect people's right to pay
you
> : exactly how they want? Or do you want a say in how you get paid?
>
> I don't sell things very often (occasionally on eBay) but I don't
care
> much how I get paid as long as I get the money.

So you'd take Malaysian Ringits? Or brass buttons?

> What's your point..?

Er, that a seller has as much right to determine the method of payment
as a buyer.

--
Andy

Klunk  wrote:
> Recent experience springs to mind with Tesco Insurance. Despite numerous 
> calls and letters to them saying I did not want to renew my policy they 
> decided it would be fine and dandy to collect the premium using a 12 
> month old direct debit mandate.

I could ask why the DD was still active. If I cancel a service I also
instruct my bank to cancel the corresponding DD. Any debit from that DD
is then the bank's fault and it's up to them to refund the money to you
rather than the Third Party.


> Direct Debit offers no benefit at all to the customer - it's all one way. 
> They just say 'Help yourself to however much money you would like from my 
> wallet'.

I have several bills that vary month by month, and it is convenient to
me that I can "just let it happen". The one time I had a DD processed
incorrectly I had the money back (from my bank) within 24 hours and all
charges rescinded. (The bank did initially try to shrug off the error as
not their problem, but I reminded them of the terms of the DD agreement
and they backed down.)

Chris

In news:6bd227F386mrfU1@mid.individual.net,
Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:

[snip]

: What, companies aren't allowed to make profits?

Profit, yes. Unfair and/or excessive profit, no.

: > : > : The "choice" is not just one-sided.
: > : >
: > : > Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me pay
: how  I  want.
: > :
: > : Quite, and if they don't, they'll up their prices till you move
: > : elsewhere. It's what happens in a free market.
: >
: > It's hardly free if it costs me money..!
:
: Duh...

Gosh.

: > : > As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect people's
: right to pay how they want without penalty.
: > :
: > : If you are selling something, do you respect people's right to pay
: you  exactly how they want? Or do you want a say in how you get paid?
: >
: > I don't sell things very often (occasionally on eBay) but I don't
: care  much how I get paid as long as I get the money.
:
: So you'd take Malaysian Ringits? Or brass buttons?

Are either of those valid currencies..?

: > What's your point..?
:
: Er, that a seller has as much right to determine the method of payment
: as a buyer.

And as a buyer I have the right to tell a seller what I think of them.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6bgfk6F3bve9rU1@mid.individual.net...
> : What, companies aren't allowed to make profits?
>
> Profit, yes. Unfair and/or excessive profit, no.

Companies have always made excessive profits out of the stupid.  It's
one of the fundamentals of capitalism.

Insurance is a classic example, like payment protection insurance, car
hire "super CDW", extended warranties, travel insurance from the
travel agent, etc.

Then there are supermarkets who sell exactly the same, or virtually
the same, product at two different prices, just call one "economy" and
the other "standard" because some snobs will never buy "economy".

Then there's clothing which sells at silly prices because of the
brand - yet a much cheaper brand is made by exactly the same people in
exactly the same way with the same materials in the same third world
sweatshop.

In all the above examples there are cheaper alternatives, but if
people are stupid enough to pay more, companies will naturally
encourage them to.

Same with payment method surcharges.

> : > : > : The "choice" is not just one-sided.
> : > : >
> : > : > Maybe not but if they want my business enough they'll let me
pay
> : how  I  want.
> : > :
> : > : Quite, and if they don't, they'll up their prices till you
move
> : > : elsewhere. It's what happens in a free market.
> : >
> : > It's hardly free if it costs me money..!
> :
> : Duh...
>
> Gosh.
>
> : > : > As it happens I have no problem with DD but I respect
people's
> : right to pay how they want without penalty.
> : > :
> : > : If you are selling something, do you respect people's right to
pay
> : you  exactly how they want? Or do you want a say in how you get
paid?
> : >
> : > I don't sell things very often (occasionally on eBay) but I
don't
> : care  much how I get paid as long as I get the money.
> :
> : So you'd take Malaysian Ringits? Or brass buttons?
>
> Are either of those valid currencies..?

Yes. If the two people involved in the trade accept them.

> : > What's your point..?
> :
> : Er, that a seller has as much right to determine the method of
payment
> : as a buyer.
>
> And as a buyer I have the right to tell a seller what I think of
them.

Yes. But don't try to tell them they should be forced to accept any
payment method the buyer wants to use.

--
Andy