Charging less if paying by direct debit

ninty

Is it legal to charge less if you pay by direct debit, bord gais offered me 5% off bill if i changed to DD and paperless billing but looking at section 48 of Consumer protection Act 2007 i read

"without limiting any of the other means by which that subsection
may be contravened, a trader shall be deemed
to impose an additional charge, by reason of the person
concerned making payment as mentioned in that subsection,
if the price charged by the trader in respect of the
product concerned is, where one of the relevant methods
of payment is used by that person, greater than the price
that would be so charged were that person to use another
of them"

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

There is no additional charge being imposed. A discount is being offered for using a payment method that has inherently lower costs for the supplier. Perfectly legal and great that companies, in effect, pass on the savings to the customer.

ninty

Elyse Proud Skillet wrote: »

There is no additional charge being imposed. A discount is being offered for using a payment method that has inherently lower costs for the supplier. Perfectly legal and great that companies, in effect, pass on the savings to the customer.

But i am being charged a price higher than if i had paid by direct debit in effect a surcharge for paying cash also the act states (section 48 as well)

"it is immaterial that the trader can show that any expenses
incurred by the trader in accepting payment by one of
the relevant methods are greater than those incurred by
the trader in accepting payment by another of them"

From my understanding of the act if they offer you 3 methods of payment there must be no price discrimination irrespective of costs involved. So lower costs of direct debit is immaterial

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

No, you are being charged the standard price for paying by cash.

28064212

Elyse Proud Skillet wrote: »

There is no additional charge being imposed. A discount is being offered for using a payment method that has inherently lower costs for the supplier. Perfectly legal and great that companies, in effect, pass on the savings to the customer.

A discount on one item has exactly the same meaning as an additional charge on all other items. The former just sounds better on marketing materials. The section of the Act doesn't mention discounts or additional charges, it just refers to having different prices:

where one of the relevant methods of payment is used by that person, greater than the price that would be so charged were that person to use another of them

It also specifically mentions that the costs to the trader are irrelevant:

it is immaterial that the trader can show that any expenses incurred by the trader in accepting payment by one of the relevant methods are greater than those incurred by the trader in accepting payment by another of them.

So direct debit charges are in contravention of the Act.

However, if you read the Commencement Order (PDF) of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (which is what actually makes it law):

The 1st day of May 2007 is appointed as the day on which the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (No. 19 of 2007), other than sections 48 and 49, come into operation

So, yes, it is legal to charge less for paying by direct debit

duffman13

Above poster nailed it

ninty

Elyse Proud Skillet wrote: »

No, you are being charged the standard price for paying by cash.

So they are charging me less for paying by DD which is illegal,Please disregard as posts above were being made at same time and did not see them,Thank you.

ancapallliath

ninty wrote: »

So they are charging me less for paying by DD which is illegal,Please disregard as posts above were being made at same time and did not see them,Thank you.

i was working on the implementation of a billing system a a year or so back.
working with the business, the design was that and extra charge for paper bills could be applied - i say could as it was a checkbox

anyway, the regulator was always involved, and in this case deemed that this was illegal to charge extra for paper billing.
however, what was implemented then was the standard prices increased and a discount applied for paperless.

example package was €50 and they tried to apply €1 for paper billing. not allowed so package now costs €51 and a discount of €1 is applied to paperless.

ninty

see below

ninty

ancapallliath wrote: »

i was working on the implementation of a billing system a a year or so back.
working with the business, the design was that and extra charge for paper bills could be applied - i say could as it was a checkbox

anyway, the regulator was always involved, and in this case deemed that this was illegal to charge extra for paper billing.
however, what was implemented then was the standard prices increased and a discount applied for paperless.

example package was €50 and they tried to apply €1 for paper billing. not allowed so package now costs €51 and a discount of €1 is applied to paperless.

Its amazing that they consider this law worthwhile in the first place and when somebody finds a loophole and circumvents it no subsequent legislation is enacted

28064212

ninty wrote: »

Its amazing that they consider this law worthwhile in the first place and when somebody finds a loophole and circumvents it no subsequent legislation is enacted

There is no loophole. The legislation as written doesn't care whether it's a "discount" or a "charge".

Section 48 was never enacted. It was never part of law

ancapallliath

ninty wrote: »

Its amazing that they consider this law worthwhile in the first place and when somebody finds a loophole and circumvents it no subsequent legislation is enacted

it appears thats the way the world works unfortunately

with regards the price increase then applying the discount, this was all during the implementation phase. packages etc changed prior to go live so I am not sure if they did in fact increase package prices to counter the discount.

it is however within their rights to do so if the regulator does not regulate correctly.

ninty

28064212 wrote: »

There is no loophole. The legislation as written doesn't care whether it's a "discount" or a "charge".

Section 48 was never enacted. It was never part of law

Is there a reason for this,excuse my ignorance

28064212

ninty wrote: »

Is there a reason for this,excuse my ignorance

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2008/04/30/00011.asp
Specifically:

These issues related to the compatibility of sections 48 and 49 with EU law, specifically with the EU directive on unfair commercial practices and the EU payment services directive. The Attorney General’s advice is that sections 48 and 49 are not compatible with the maximum harmonisation nature of the unfair commercial practices directive in that the sections seek to legislate within the field of consumer protection approximated by the directive. He argues that by going beyond what is permitted by the directive, the sections are not compatible with the maximum harmonisation nature of the directive.

ninty

28064212 wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2008/04/30/00011.asp
Specifically:

Excellent,really appreciate your knowledge base,thanks