Britannist

And where would one 'charge up' this card, I wonder. Perhaps certain supermarkets hope it will reduce the time staff spent taking till payments in cash - by effectively transferring the 'cash bit' to small local shops where people will form a large queue in order to 'charge up'.

I expect the supermarkets will put in machines (like the ones one finds in mobile telephone shops) where the customer has to feed in a £10 or £20 note to charge up their card.

I may not be against this idea in principal as a way of paying at the supermarket, but I think most people will not be under any illusion that it is being done by the customers to help the customers - for it clearly would be introduced as a payments system to save the supermarkets the money on paying for till staff.

Zak64

Brittanist wrote:
I'm no solicitor, but I have to say I'm dubious about the legality of this.

If you are a business collecting monies off the public for a service provided, then you must accept the cost of collecting those monies as part of your normal overheads. You have to have premesis and employ staff etc.

But why should I pay to pay them ? What legal basis does that have ?

This looks like a penalty clause, and as such is unlawful and has been since 1896. The case of Dunlop Tyre Co v New Garage Motor Co (1915) further set and refined the precedent. If there is a breach of contract, the wronged party can collect a liquidated damage which is a fair compensation for the loss suffered. But if the wronged party claims an "extravagant and unconscionable" amount, especialy to make a profit, then it ia a penalty charge and as such is uneforceable before the law.

This has been tested about five times in law, the latest being in 2004 (?) Every time the court has reached the same verdict.

Therefore I say this. Pay BT their cursed £6.00. Send them a letter, recorded delivery, stating that you believe the £6.00 is a penalty charge, as it does not reflect their true costs and as such is unlawful, if they do not refund the £6.00 within 14 working days you will be left with no choice but to issue proceedings against them in the small claims court. Add also that you will charge them for the cost of postage, court costs, and interest at 8%

Then watch 'em squirm !

Even if they turn up to defend it in Court (They won't !) the small claims track awards no costs, so you won't be saddled with their legal costs, even if you lose ! And you won't !

g hall

They will argue and probably win by saying that customers paying via DD are recieving a discount - remember the legislation that allowed surcharge on credit cards because of extra admin costs

Zak64

g hall wrote
The fact that some customers are paying via DD does not give BT the right to charge anyone a penalty charge, which is unlawful, as it is intended to provide profits for the organisation. It does not cost BT £6.00 to cash your cheque !

If it does, let them prove it in court !

C_steam

The legality point is interesting, particularly in the cash instance. Surely 'cash' is the legal tender, so in effect there is a surcharge for paying with the coinage of the realm?

g hall

Zak Zzygote
Terms and conditions may make it lawful, anyway anyone can chose to do business with who they like and then you have "contracts" with legally enforcable conditions

It would be interesting if a lawyer took a no win no fee and argued that it was unlawful or unfair as it would have a tremendous effect on the way that energy companies and others use DD to basically raid your bank account

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ

Zak64

g hall wrote
and
Wrong! An unlawful clause in a contract will be set aside by any judge.

You can have as many terms and conditions in your contract as you wish, but if they are not lawful they will not stand before the courts.

If BT include a clause in the contract saying you have to go out and carry out a ram raid on an off licence and steal £1000 worth of vodka, would you expect a judge to uphold that clause ? Of course not ! Ok I chose a deliberately OTT example, but the principle is sound. No court will enforce an unlawful contract, no matter how many fancy terms and conditions are in it.

As I said earlier, I am not a solicitor, but even I would argue that one in a small claims court. I would argue that BT provide a service, which I pay them for, and any attempt to charge me a fee for paying monies I legitimately owe them is in the nature of a penalty charge and therefore uneforceable before the courts. It does not cost BT £6.00 to collect cash, or bank a cheque, and therefore the £6.00 is intended to make a profit for BT, becoming therefore an unlawful penalty charge.

They may argue that the £6.00 is a fee for a service, but again I'm sure that won't stand. Collecting monies owed for the delivery of a service is not in and of itself a service.

Write to BT (recorded delivery, ALWAYS recorded delivery !) claiming the £6.00 to be a penalty clause, give them 28 days to refund it in full, if they don't - SUE THEIR SORRY A*SES OFF It would cost £35 to file the case, which you would get back when you won your case. As you would.

I guess BT would do what the Banks are currently doing. They will get their solicitors to write snotty letters, and then either pay up in full a few days before the court date. Or they won't show up in court, thereby automaticaly losing the case.

Don't stand for BT and their £6.00 pranks. SUE THEIR SORRY A*SES OFF ! :twisted: :twisted:

BTW I sued Gnat West for about £1700 just before Christmass, using the above arguments. They settled in full, a few days before the court date !

g hall

Zak Zzygote
In this country and until the EU decide otherwise law is interpreted by the judge and then becomes the judgement that lawyers reference - not to say it cannot be overuled.
Big problem some judges do give perverse rulings so your assertion that any judge would set it aside is not accurate I would suggest most would be so inclined BUT there is always the odd sod

Besoeker

I wonder how, in practical terms, you could pay BT in cash?

Zak64

g hall wrote
What you say is in essence correct. However I still maintain it does not cost BT £6.00 to bank a cheque - therefore it is a penalty charge - and unenforceable before the courts.

If it does cost BT £6.00 to bank a cheque, let them come to court and show a breakdown of their figures to the judge. They will not want such commercialy sensitive facts bandied about in an open court.

They will back down. They will not fight this in court. The legality of this is way dubious. The problem is that if 1000 people threaten them with a small claims court at £35.00 a time in 1 month, but they collect 10,000 £6.00 fees in a month, they will simply take a commercial decision to continue as it profits them.

Another avenue of attack is the Unfair Terms and Conditions Act.