| |
Direct debits have, for many people, proved to be an absolute blessing, especially as old age intrudes on sharpness of mind and forgetfulness rears its ugly head. With this payment system the onus of 'remembering to pay' shifts from the customer to the supplier, which means an end to the final demand invoice. All too often this used to signal that, although the cheque had been made out, put in an envelope and the stamp placed thereon, the payment was tucked securely in an overcoat pocket waiting to be posted but long forgotten.
With direct debits this embarrassment has disappeared; the supplier contacts your bank for payment and all that you have to do is scrutinise your bank statement to ensure that all is in order. Life became much simpler for both the customer and the supplier. So much better in fact for the supplier, with late payment chasing becoming unnecessary, that many started to offer inducements in the form of a discount to encourage the use of this system. Understandably, there will always be some who regard removal of their money from their bank account by creditors as anathema, with loss of control for the account holder. Others are without a bank account and have no intention of opening one purely to satisfy these demands. These people quite rightly demanded (and got) continuation of their existing system of paying by cheque or in person with cash, but of course they had to forgo the offered direct debit discount.
It appears that this insistence on the old ways became an irritant to some companies, who decided that their costs in dealing with these exceptions should be charged to the customers who demanded their retention. The change was first implemented by communications and utilities suppliers, who have introduced various systems ranging from monthly to quarterly charges, through discounts for direct debit to (in a few cases) refusal to open an account for anyone who will not pay by direct debit. Whilst the majority of customers are reported to have no objection to the discounts given to others, they object very strongly to having to pay the charges, and it is understood that there have been many protests - apart from the perceived injustice of the charges themselves, many have voiced their displeasure at the actual sum charged, saying that it does not represent any cost which the supply company could possibly have incurred.
Companies are said to have a legal right to vary their charges according to the payment method used, but one wonders about the moral implications when charges are applied for customers who are paying as they always have. The debate is likely to continue for some time.
|
|