Leap Card agents charging transaction fees

BlueCam

Is anyone aware of Leap Card agents charging fees for topping up and whether they're actually allowed to do this by Leap/Payzone?

I was catching a Dart at Pearse Station today and hadn't realised my card was out of credit. Was advised by the ticket office at Pearse to go down the road to Centra on Westland Row because, of course, it's impossible to top up a Leap Card at a Dart station... Asked for a €10 top up at Centra only to be told that there was a 25c transaction fee on Leap top-ups, regardless of the amount you top up by. Of course, given that I had to take the Dart, I had no option but to pay it.

It really sickens me that they're taking advantage like this - obviously Pearse Station sends anyone with a Leap Card down their way and there's no way of avoiding the fee unless you want to run over to somewhere on Nassau Street.

(On a side note.. why couldn't they install some of the small Leap Card top-up machines that they have in shops in ticket offices at IE stations until they sort out the automatic ticket machines? Surely this would be a very simple stop-gap measure?)

Carawaystick

Pearse station don't do credit card transactions at the ticket desk, asking for leap transactions is a bit much...

ScouseMouse

I could see this coming.

Payzone and the NRA are squeezing the shops so hard, the only way the shop can afford to do it is to have a transaction charge. Its like the phone credit issue. The phone companies squeezed the shops by increasing the cost to the shops, but expected them to swallow it.

With the rate shops are closing at the moment, expect it - and more.

Jehuty42

That particular Centra puts extra charges on everything they can and they won't take a credit or debit card unless you make a >€10 transaction. But yes, I expect this to become a trend.

AlekSmart

Jehuty42 wrote: »

That particular Centra puts extra charges on everything they can and they won't take a credit or debit card unless you make a >€10 transaction. But yes, I expect this to become a trend.

Shesh...To Hell in a Handcart !! :mad:

Yet another example of an Integrated Ticketing project which was allowed to commence in a half-cocked and poorly thought-out manner.

The Topping-Up of Leapcard,ease,cost and availability is absolutely central to the issue of whether the ITS project fails or moves forward to the next phase.

What is being described above is "Scalping" by the retail agent,something which Payzone and Leapcard need to eliminate NOW.

devnull

Is this actually permitted or are retailers chancing their arm?

ScouseMouse

It is permitted, its a breach of the competition act for any company to dictate the price anything sells at.

(Price fixing)

mikemac1

Just takes competition to wipe it out

Xtravision never charged extra for phone credit so why pay a small shop the extra?
Over time people would not put up with it so more and more shops got rid of the surcharge.

Some shops had signs in their window proudly declaring they didn't charge. Which isn't something to be proud of, that was how it used to be.

Some retailers trying it again now with Leap. And if people keep paying then they will keep it.
Go elsewhere, not everywhere will charge so give them the business

Victor

It would seem this is not permitted. however, superscouse does make an interesting point.

superscouse wrote: »

It is permitted, its a breach of the competition act for any company to dictate the price anything sells at.

(Price fixing)

ScouseMouse

Victor, I am sending you a pm.

smackyB

Any word on when we can expect the IR machines to be able to topup LEAP cards? I recall someone saying February but that's clearly come and gone

BlueCam

superscouse wrote: »

It is permitted, its a breach of the competition act for any company to dictate the price anything sells at.

(Price fixing)

I've studied competition law and this isn't a breach of it - Payzone is not abusing a dominant position. There are many different payment systems in existence and retailers are free to decide which they use/don't use. If they don't like the margin they get on Payzone transactions, they're not forced to use it.

I am assuming that Payzone includes in its agreements with retailers the clause that they may not charge an extra transaction fee on Payzone transactions (or indeed on specific transactions for which Payzone is necessary, e.g. a retailer couldn't decide to charge 25c for O2 top-ups). The reasons for this are obvious - consumers would be rather averse to using the service if different shops charged different transaction fees. Again, this isn't a breach of competition law as long as Payzone is not abusing a dominant position.

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

Shesh...To Hell in a Handcart !! :mad:

Yet another example of an Integrated Ticketing project which was allowed to commence in a half-cocked and poorly thought-out manner.

The Topping-Up of Leapcard,ease,cost and availability is absolutely central to the issue of whether the ITS project fails or moves forward to the next phase.

What is being described above is "Scalping" by the retail agent,something which Payzone and Leapcard need to eliminate NOW.

one major problem is there seems to be nothing at all coming from Leapcard since the launch of the card, all the promised features are still "coming soon" which seems to be their version of we don't have the ability and don't have the funds to acquire the ability to provide anything more than an e-purse which is worse than cash on the busses!

Now we are seeing issues with the Leapcard agents who not only want to charge payzone leapcard customers extra but they kick up over allowing leapcard customers to load credit unless they have bought something in their shop.

Victor

BlueCam wrote: »

I've studied competition law and this isn't a breach of it - Payzone is not abusing a dominant position. There are many different payment systems in existence and retailers are free to decide which they use/don't use. If they don't like the margin they get on Payzone transactions, they're not forced to use it.

While there are other systems like PostPoint / Bill Pay / MyBills.ie are we certain that Payzone doesn't have a huge part of the market, especially in certain product lines? Certainly PayPoint aren't exactly high profile.

ScouseMouse

As the only supplier to shops, payzone are in a dominant position, shops cannot get it elsewhere.

And, any agreement can be overturned or be deemed unenforcable if it is shown to be illegal or anti competative.

You could still charge a tenner for a tenner top up but a transaction fee could be deemed seperate and so you are only paying a tenner for it - any extra could be for the service of the staff.

ScouseMouse

foggy_lad wrote: »

Now we are seeing issues with the Leapcard agents who not only want to charge payzone leapcard customers extra but they kick up over allowing leapcard customers to load credit unless they have bought something in their shop.

In other words, the shops are expected to provide the service for nothing.:rolleyes:

Only in Ireland could it be fecked up so badly.

BlueCam

Victor wrote: »

While there are other systems like PostPoint / Bill Pay / MyBills.ie are we certain that Payzone doesn't have a huge part of the market, especially in certain product lines? Certainly PayPoint aren't exactly high profile.

Fair point but it depends on the market definition. I am certain Payzone would argue that the market isn't simply that they "provide payment solutions to independent retailers" - they would argue that each service they provide is a market in itself, given that in almost every case there is an alternative means for a consumer to avail of it, e.g. for a mobile phone top-up I am sure online top-ups account for a far larger proportion of sales than Payzone top-ups. There may be individual services where Payzone is either the sole means of payment or where Payzone payments account for a monopoly of market share, but I have a feeling that for most of its services this isn't the case.

ScouseMouse

BlueCam wrote: »

Fair point but it depends on the market definition. I am certain Payzone would argue that the market isn't simply that they "provide payment solutions to independent retailers" - they would argue that each service they provide is a market in itself, given that in almost every case there is an alternative means for a consumer to avail of it, e.g. for a mobile phone top-up I am sure online top-ups account for a far larger proportion of sales than Payzone top-ups. There may be individual services where Payzone is either the sole means of payment or where Payzone payments account for a monopoly of market share, but I have a feeling that for most of its services this isn't the case.

Quite right on some of your points.

Payzone are the ONLY suppliers to shops for Toll payments and Leap Top ups.

This is what puts them in a dominant position.

The last thing I am going to say is: complaints, from retailers, by email, to the competition authority, cc'd to payzone, does get results.:p

foggy_lad

I sent an email to Leap customer services and they responded by saying there should not be any service charges on topping up and went on to say it was probably that the customer got their €10 top up and found they only had €9.75 on the card because they had eaten into the deposit on the card, not a great response tbh.

Hello ******,


Thank you for your email. From what we know there should not be any service charges on topping up the leapcard in any payzone store. A usual case that we have seen is people think there is a service charge when they top up by e.g. €10 and only have €9.75 on there card this usually means that they went into there deposit so before they topped up they were in a negative balance of -€0.25 hence when topping up by €10 they only have €9.75 on their card. I hope this information helps.





Kind Regards,
****** ********,
Leap Card Customer Care

foggy_lad

superscouse wrote: »

In other words, the shops are expected to provide the service for nothing.:rolleyes:

Only in Ireland could it be fecked up so badly.

Yes!

If the shops don't like the deal offered to them by Payzone Postpoint etc they don't have to use those services! most people going into a shop to pay a bill or toll or top up their phone or leap card will usually buy something else.

Imho the shops are just being greedy like they were with mobile top-ups.

BlueCam

superscouse wrote: »

Quite right on some of your points.

Payzone are the ONLY suppliers to shops for Toll payments and Leap Top ups.

This is what puts them in a dominant position.

The last thing I am going to say is: complaints, from retailers, by email, to the competition authority, cc'd to payzone, does get results.:p

You are correct, but in the case of Leap, Leap top-ups in shops isn't a market in itself - it is a component of the overall market for Leap top-ups, for which there are a number of other ways of paying - namely online and at Luas machines. If 90% of Leap top-ups turned out to be done via Payzone then of course it could still be argued that Payzone has a dominant position in the market for Leap top-ups, but if the split is 33-33-33 across Payzone/online/Luas machines, then this would not constitute a dominant position.

Even if Payzone was found to be in a dominant position, it could then argue that because neither online nor Luas machine top-ups incur transaction charges, in order to compete effectively it is obliged to stop its retailers from charging an extra fee (on the basis that otherwise, consumers would not use Payzone because it costs them more).

antoinolachtnai

Dominance has nothing to do with it. An agreement between undertakings to distort competition in trade of goods or services is forbidden. To fix a price at a particular level is forbidden.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html#sec4

BlueCam

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Dominance has nothing to do with it. An agreement between undertakings to distort competition in trade of goods or services is forbidden. To fix a price at a particular level is forbidden.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html#sec4

You're misreading the Act. It states that fixing selling prices is only prohibited in the case of "agreements [...] which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services". In order for a firm to prevent, restrict, or distort trade, in practice this firm must be in a dominant position - otherwise it would have no control over the market and any attempt at the above would not be successful.

ScouseMouse

From a RETAILERS point of view, they can only buy from one supplier - Payzone. There is no 33/33/33 split.

antoinolachtnai

That is not what the Act says. You might wish this is what the Act says, but the idea that it is OK to fix prices as long as you are a sufficiently small player is ridiculous and wrong. Unfortunately this idea seems to be widespread.

You may be mixing up section 4 with section 5, which deals with an undertaking in a dominant position.

Victor

BlueCam wrote: »

You are correct, but in the case of Leap, Leap top-ups in shops isn't a market in itself - it is a component of the overall market for Leap top-ups, for which there are a number of other ways of paying - namely online and at Luas machines. If 90% of Leap top-ups turned out to be done via Payzone then of course it could still be argued that Payzone has a dominant position in the market for Leap top-ups, but if the split is 33-33-33 across Payzone/online/Luas machines, then this would not constitute a dominant position.

On-line top-ups are via Payzone.

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is not what the Act says. You might wish this is what the Act says, but the idea that it is OK to fix prices as long as you are a sufficiently small player is ridiculous and wrong. Unfortunately this idea seems to be widespread.

You may be mixing up section 4 with section 5, which deals with an undertaking in a dominant position.

Potentially the contract is structured as NTA / Leap says Payzone / Luas / Irish Rail can only charge X% commission on sales.

Payzone are then offering to retailers one of two options (a) We need you to give €10 top-ups, how much commission do you want, which we will pay you? (b) We need you to give €10 top-ups, we are offering Y% commission, do you want to take part in the scheme?

Not all Payzone agents take part in Leap. Payzone isn't the only way to get a Leap top-up, although they have about two-thirds of the top-up locations.

ScouseMouse

My understanding, as a retailer, is, I cannot get supply of the leap top up anywhere else. Payzone is the only supplier available to me.

Is there another place I can get them wholesale?

Gingernuts31

I work in a Garage and we use payzone. We don't charge for phone credit but we do charge for topping up 3V cards and the o2 money topup card. I don't think we charge for anything else. We don't do leap cards as we are not in Dublin.

BlueCam

superscouse wrote: »

My understanding, as a retailer, is, I cannot get supply of the leap top up anywhere else. Payzone is the only supplier available to me.

Is there another place I can get them wholesale?

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of competition law and the case law behind it. Competition law has never been designed to protect retailers - it is designed to protect consumers from producers who exploit market power. I know that seems hugely unfair as a retailer, but unfortunately it is true.

This page gives a good overview of market definition, specifically: "a relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use". In the case of the Leap Card, buying at a shop would be considered interchangeable with buying online which would be considered interchangeable with buying at a Luas machine because the characteristics, price, and intended use of the service are all identical.

I agree that there is nowhere else you as a retailer can go to get Leap top-ups, but the market for shops selling Leap top-ups is not protected under competition law. It is merely a component of the overall Leap top-up market. In effect, Payzone has offered you a service, with a profit margin of x%. If you don't think that margin is enough, you don't have to sell the service they are offering. It's not anti-competitive behaviour on their part. What would constitute anti-competitive behaviour, for example, would be if Visa or Mastercard created a rule that said retailers could only accept one or the other. Or if the two of them decided to raise their fees on retailers in unison. That is anti-competitive because they are abusing their dominant position. Does that make sense?

foggy_lad

The latest from leap customer service is that the charge can be applied at the shopkeepers discretion and can be any amount they choose! What use are leap customer service? They don't process refunds, they can't protect customers from shopkeepers adding on charges to your top-ups.

ScouseMouse

foggy_lad wrote: »

The latest from leap customer service is that the charge can be applied at the shopkeepers discretion and can be any amount they choose! What use are leap customer service? They don't process refunds, they can't protect customers from shopkeepers adding on charges to your top-ups.

Listen foggy, this has come up numerous times over the phone credit surcharge, and we have crossed swords before.

You can email them as much as you like, but they have no say in it.

I know this. Check out post number 18 above. It was me that lodged the complaint to the competition authority. I cc'd each email to payzone.

antoinolachtnai

You do not have to be in a dominant position to breach competition law. The discussion of market definition is not really relevant to the case. Dominance is extremely difficult to prove in practice partly because it is difficult to prove a market definition.

There is no market that is not 'protected' by competition law. Even the industries that are partly exempted by treaty (I am thinking of the transport industries) are effected to some extent by competition law.

The 'purpose' of national and European competition law is really to enforce Section 85 of the Treaty of Rome.

steve-o

If retailers can charge what they want, why isn't this an issue with lottery tickets, bus tickets, bin labels, etc?

ScouseMouse

steve-o wrote: »

If retailers can charge what they want, why isn't this an issue with lottery tickets, bus tickets, bin labels, etc?

Because lottery tickets are a set margin, with no phone line rental or maintenance bills for the retailer.

Bus tickets are the same.

Some shops do charge a fee for bin credit. If coke increases the price of a can by 5%, then the retail price will go up. Why not with credit. Whats the difference?

With payzone, the retailer pays for the phone line, and the machine rental, both to earn about 3%.

The problem with phone credit only arose when the phone companies increased the cost by about 6%, cutting the retailers wages substantially.

It costs about 35 euro a month to have the machine working. Thats a lot of credit and leap card you have to sell to cover it, never mind make a profit. Then you get the person who wants to pay by credit card which costs upto 4%.:mad:

There is only so low you can go before something becomes uneconomical.

foggy_lad

superscouse wrote: »

Because lottery tickets are a set margin, with no phone line rental or maintenance bills for the retailer.

Bus tickets are the same.

Some shops do charge a fee for bin credit. If coke increases the price of a can by 5%, then the retail price will go up. Why not with credit. Whats the difference?

With payzone, the retailer pays for the phone line, and the machine rental, both to earn about 3%.

The problem with phone credit only arose when the phone companies increased the cost by about 6%, cutting the retailers wages substantially.

It costs about 35 euro a month to have the machine working. Thats a lot of credit and leap card you have to sell to cover it, never mind make a profit. Then you get the person who wants to pay by credit card which costs upto 4%.:mad:

There is only so low you can go before something becomes uneconomical.

Then why not just stop selling it instead of adding on surcharges and losing yourselves customers? I have never paid extra for mobile phone credit and have usually avoided the sort of shops where they charged extra. It will be the same for leapcards with customers ignoring the profiteers who try to hold people to ransom especially in a busy city centre shop.

Vahevala

superscouse wrote: »

Because lottery tickets are a set margin, with no phone line rental or maintenance bills for the retailer.

Bus tickets are the same.

Some shops do charge a fee for bin credit. If coke increases the price of a can by 5%, then the retail price will go up. Why not with credit. Whats the difference?

With payzone, the retailer pays for the phone line, and the machine rental, both to earn about 3%.

The problem with phone credit only arose when the phone companies increased the cost by about 6%, cutting the retailers wages substantially.

It costs about 35 euro a month to have the machine working. Thats a lot of credit and leap card you have to sell to cover it, never mind make a profit. Then you get the person who wants to pay by credit card which costs upto 4%.:mad:

There is only so low you can go before something becomes uneconomical.

So you are trying to imply you wouldn't have a phone line if it wasn't for this? Pull the other one.

Love to know what shop you run because I would avoid you like the plague. It is a recession and you are too busy trying to rip us all off.

ScouseMouse

Vahevala wrote: »

So you are trying to imply you wouldn't have a phone line if it wasn't for this? Pull the other one.

Love to know what shop you run because I would avoid you like the plague. It is a recession and you are too busy trying to rip us all off.

Payzone insisted on a dedicated phone line for their machine.

Oh, and dont be so aggresive, I dont rip people off. I was standing behind my counter on christmas day. Where were you?

Oh, another thing, I have four phone lines, four line rentals etc etc.

irbx

superscouse wrote: »

Payzone insisted on a dedicated phone line for their machine.

Oh, and dont be so aggresive, I dont rip people off. I was standing behind my counter on christmas day. Where were you?

Oh, another thing, I have four phone lines, four line rentals etc etc.

My former boss used to be charged fees that banks charge to lodge cash and even more to lodge coin with them. this was the case with bank of ireland bushiness cant remember the charge but was on per €100 lodged

ScouseMouse

irbx wrote: »

My former boss used to be charged fees that banks charge to lodge cash and even more to lodge coin with them. this was the case with bank of ireland bushiness cant remember the charge but was on per €100 lodged

I have a bill here for over 800 euro for physically putting the cash over the counter. This has to be factored into the selling price of everything a business sells.

I pay Ulster Bank 50c per 100 euro and this is a serious expense for any business.

the groutch

4 words:

Vote With Your Feet

Victor

Vahevala wrote: »

It is a recession and you are too busy trying to rip us all off.

That is quite unfair. Many shops are struggling and many more have closed, due to high rents and lower turnover.

Vahevala

Victor wrote: »

That is quite unfair. Many shops are struggling and many more have closed, due to high rents and lower turnover.

That isn't my problem. I was in a certain shop yesterday, I saw a sign at the till saying if I wanted to buy leap credit/bus ticket/luas ticket by debit or credit card, I can only do this, if I buy another item from the shop.

I won't be going to that newsagent in future. It is a recession, why should I have to pay extra for a service that is provided. That's why I gave up on prepaid mobile phone credit, why should I have to pay extra just because the shops want more money.

Go elsewhere and give another business your money who won't rip you off is my motto in life.

Victor

Vahevala wrote: »

That isn't my problem. I was in a certain shop yesterday, I saw a sign at the till saying if I wanted to buy leap credit/bus ticket/luas ticket by debit or credit card, I can only do this, if I buy another item from the shop.

I won't be going to that newsagent in future. It is a recession, why should I have to pay extra for a service that is provided.

The flip side, is why should a shop be forced to provide a service at a loss, it the credit card charges are more than the ticket commission?

Vahevala

Victor wrote: »

The flip side, is why should a shop be forced to provide a service at a loss, it the credit card charges are more than the ticket commission?

Then don't offer the service. Simple.

foggy_lad

Vahevala wrote: »

Then don't offer the service. Simple.

By telling people with signs that they must buy more than €XX.XX the shops are not offering the service to anyone who chooses to spend less, but really it should be all or nothing because I find more and more shops fail to tell customers of extra charges until they are rung up on the till or when the change is being handed back across the counter. This leads to undue pressure on customers to pay especially where there is a que and the shop assistant has poor English and you get the impression that arguing about the extra charge or looking to have the transaction cancelled would take more time than you had to spare.

AlekSmart

Vahevala wrote: »

That isn't my problem. I was in a certain shop yesterday, I saw a sign at the till saying if I wanted to buy leap credit/bus ticket/luas ticket by debit or credit card, I can only do this, if I buy another item from the shop.

I won't be going to that newsagent in future. It is a recession, why should I have to pay extra for a service that is provided. That's why I gave up on prepaid mobile phone credit, why should I have to pay extra just because the shops want more money.

Go elsewhere and give another business your money who won't rip you off is my motto in life.

Just to refocus this thread for a tic......

Does anybody see how this development represents a HUGE problem for the ITS project as a whole ?

The Leapcard top-up purchased via the approved Payzone method,IS a transaction in it's own right.
If an individual retailer is now suggesting otherwise then Leapcard has a HUGE problem.

Remember Leapcard is not a bar of chocolate or an ice-lolly,it is the fruition of over a decade of planning and (mis)management which was conducted at the highest level of Irish Public Administration.

ITS has been promoted as one of the largest such projects ever undertaken in this State,and it is still being referenced as a system which will revolutionize how we use Public Transport.

This "Skimming" has at a stroke reduced the public standing of Leapcard and is now yet another negative to be added to the already long list.

As of now,it's becoming very difficult to convince ANY potential Leapcard user to move from cash transactions as they read and hear of this litany of incompetence,greed and downright negligent implimentation.

10+ years and €40 Million for this....:o

antoinolachtnai

First of all, retailers are not skimming. Retailers expect to get paid for their effort and capital, the same as everybody else involved in moving passengers from A to B. Commissions are pretty low as it is. When the system is used to sell products, the commission will be so low as to be unworkable.

I always thought it was always a mistake to focus on retail counters as the main channel for collecting money and selling products. With a bit of imagination, lower cost alternatives could still be found.

But this is hardly a fatal flaw. There are bigger issues, for example that I now have to queue twice to pay twice for a bus ticket now, once in the shop and again when I get on the bus.

BrianD

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

First of all, retailers are not skimming. Retailers expect to get paid for their effort and capital, the same as everybody else involved in moving passengers from A to B. Commissions are pretty low as it is. When the system is used to sell products, the commission will be so low as to be unworkable.

I always thought it was always a mistake to focus on retail counters as the main channel for collecting money and selling products. With a bit of imagination, lower cost alternatives could still be found.

But this is hardly a fatal flaw. There are bigger issues, for example that I now have to queue twice to pay twice for a bus ticket now, once in the shop and again when I get on the bus.

But is it not incremental revenue for the retailers?

Up to now, no revenue from LEAP cards. Now people are topping up and they are getting a cut. So far as I know they are using existing service providers with new readers.

I was only an occasional DB and LUAS cash customer. Now I have a LEAP and use both services more often and am topping up. Revenue the retailer would have never got before.

AlekSmart

BrianD wrote: »

But is it not incremental revenue for the retailers?

Up to now, no revenue from LEAP cards. Now people are topping up and they are getting a cut. So far as I know they are using existing service providers with new readers.

I was only an occasional DB and LUAS cash customer. Now I have a LEAP and use both services more often and am topping up. Revenue the retailer would have never got before.

Spot on BrianD,and you are a shining example of what the I.T.S scheme NEEDS to be actively promoting if it's to succeed.

I would differ with Antoin on this as I see no other aspect to this additional charge except a retailer skimming a few more cent per transaction over and above whatever arrangement has been put in place with Leapcard.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the retailers actions,the issue remains one of negative perception relating to Leapcard usability.

The system is already creaking when it should be streaking ahead by focusing on the ability to have simpler,faster and cheaper use of Public Transport...this latest nonsense only adds to the perception of a scheme which requires urgent remedial attention.

antoinolachtnai

Whatever about incremental revenue, The problem is there is little or no incremental contribution to profit for most retailers from selling a top-up at the recommended price.

The only benefit is that it might bring consumers into the shop and they might buy something else at a higher margin.

It isn't too bad with top-ups but product sales will take considerably longer to process.

You are quite right that this causes problems for the reputation and understanding of the system. But this must always have been anticipated.

I agree that the BrianD scenario is a good one, but it seems that DB is benefitting massively from this new activity (it gets 95 percent of the revenue and has absolutely no extra costs) whilst the retailer is getting a small percentage of the revenue but has to absorb significant costs.

The obvious solution to my mind would be for DB to use the benefits of the system to cut its costs and return the benefit to the retailers at the front line.