BT DD "processing" charge flawed in principle

[demon_x_slash]

Direct debits are NOT the way to go. They're all variable now, which is an utter disgrace. I'm slowly expunging them from our finances, meeting hassle and bewilderment on the way on the part of the companies concerned. They can't understand why I'd want to switch. Ha! Why should I give them carte-blanche, full access to my account so that they can take what they want, when they want? The Direct Debit Guarantee seems to be ridden over roughshod unless you make a fuss, and I don't want to have to go to my branch and complain loudly until I get seen (AGAIN) because some company has decided that they'll take three pounds more this month... Direct Debit is like handing over the golden key to the door of your account. It's not on.

[demon_x_slash]

Because I don't feel comfortable giving a company direct access to take whatever they want, whenever they want. A variable DDM gives them the power to do so. I wouldn't hand over my cashcard and PIN to an employee of this company; I would, however, hand them a cheque, with a fixed amount and a fixed date. I have no problem with fixed DDMs, but they've been phased out (I wonder why? ) I suppose it all comes down to trust - and I don't trust 'em.

[demon_x_slash]

For example:

 

Here

 

Here

 

Here

 

Here

 

Need I search the forums for more? Variable Direct Debits cause merry hell with peoples' budgeting, and the Guarantee is only enforced when the customer puts themselves out (sometimes wayyy out); that is not how the Guarantee is meant to operate!

[demon_x_slash]

Alright then.

 

Please; I appeal to all CAG users who have had their Direct Debit amounts varied, and have received a letter 10 days before the fact...! Please, post here!

[demon_x_slash]

It's great that you've never had any trouble, tlusnoc, and long may it continue. However, I've seen too many people on here experience problems with DD, and I've had things like the TV license go out three days early, thus putting me in unauthorised O/D - from these, I deduce that the variable DDM scheme is tilted in favour of the companies they're paid to, and not the consumer that pays 'em.

[demon_x_slash]

If any of you really believe that big businesses deliberately delay sending out notifications etc. then you are living on a different planet.

 

Oh, I don't believe that they're all doing it deliberately. I believe that big businesses are, ultimately and unfortunately, run by human beings. And human beings are really, really stupid. It's our natural state, we can't help it; so where there are human beings, there are errors. Errors are okay financially when you're earning over the upper 40% threshold - but when you're earning so little that you have no choice but to live from one payslip to the next, an error can be an absolute disaster.

 

Financial errors are also like dominos: when one payment fails, the rest can follow suit very quickly. You talk about taking responsibility. I take responsibility for my money; I have incurred only two banking penalties in my entire life because I am always very careful with money, and have always been lucky enough to earn just enough; one of those penalties was because I simply ran out of money one month after paying all the bills, and the other was because a Direct Debit for my TV license came out three days early. Both times, I was fined (£20+£35), for bouncing the debit plus going overdrawn by a few pence. Both times, I was incredibly fortunate to have family able to lend me £50 or so, to help me out while I was in trouble. How many people have that sort of support system? When your family is also on the breadline, and your friends, and your neighbours - who are you going to borrow the money from, then? The £50-£100 that is absolute peanuts to the people that dream up these random charges could save a person on a low income from debt collectors, CCJs and even bankruptcy.

 

I really don't agree with your attitude, tlusnoc, even though I acknowledge that you're entitled to it; once you've read as many heartwrenching stories of people bullied and harassed into utter destitution, sometimes just because of 'one little error', perhaps you'll feel differently. But then again, perhaps not.

[demon_x_slash]

I see the green-eyed god of envy here.

 

Just because somebody is earning above the 40% tax threshold, does not mean that they are not living month to month with little margin for error. I know. I've been there!

 

No, no - I meant that people earning that much usually have enough money in their accounts to act as a buffer, so the 'domino effect' for one error doesn't occur, and isn't as potentially devastating as it may be for someone earning £14,000pa. I didn't mean it was okay for the error to happen in the first place