BT charge £5 for late payers

  obbit 18:32 21 Jan 2005

Heres another BT story.

click here

  Modo 18:49 21 Jan 2005

It was noted here amongst a list of other dodgy practices on Jan 5

click here

  oresome 18:55 21 Jan 2005

Seems fair enough to me. Don't see why I should subsidise late payers.

  acein1 18:59 21 Jan 2005

i aggree with "oresome"

  Modo 18:59 21 Jan 2005

You pay BT earlier than a normal supplier.

& the OFT has already flagged it thinks that it is a practice that they are looking at with credit card companies.

It was also executed pretty shoddily. It was hideden in the smallish print. & finally it is exercisable at seven days from the date of the red reminder - not postmark date or more reasonably date of receipt.

As a shareholder I wish BT would try & sell products and services at a price that people will buy rather than rely on their old privatised billing date privileges and a mixture of very lame pricing tricks.

  stalion 19:19 21 Jan 2005

just another greedy money grab by bt

  Forum Editor 19:24 21 Jan 2005

to lambast BT for wanting to be paid on time. We are talking about people who haven't paid their bills on time after all, and like oresome and acein1 I see no reason why late payers shouldn't be penalised - rather than the rest of us, who do pay our bills.

Why on earth we seem to constantly want to defer to the laggards in our society - and repeatedly bend over backwards to see things their way - is beyond me. I'm completely in favour of BT's action, and I sincerely hope that some nannying influence doesn't prevail, and get the late-payment charge dropped. If you use the phone service you must pay, and if for some reason you can't, then you contact BT and sort it out with them - you don't just sit there doing nothing while the reminders roll in.

  Modo 19:47 21 Jan 2005

Editor I expect better from the management.

Please re-read posts 2(including link) & 5

To RE summarise

1. OFT thinks that imposing disproportionate charges called late penalties is basically a scam. It is in effect an interest rate in disguise that could be deemed as loan sharking.

2. It is a major change that has been hidden in a bill notice. A major change should be properly announced. It took The Register 14 days longer tpo spot it than this forum.

3 It is unfair because it is based on the date they choose to print on the red reminder - and for that reason is properly not legally enforcable - therefore I think BT are testing resistance.

I repeat as a shareholder I'm interested in profit performance. But this fails to convince me that BT management is concentrating on the real opportunities.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 19:47 21 Jan 2005

Don't know about anyone else but I am heartily fed up of subsidising no marks who will not pay their bills on time. These idiots are usually the first to complain when they are owed money.


  stalion 19:55 21 Jan 2005

If you do not pay your bill you get cut off.We are not subsidising anyone if we pay on time and they do not.The prices for re-connection are not cheap unless bt decide to re-connect for free as we have seen before in their adverts.Thousands are coming back to bt everyday so they say but we all know why they left in the first place.
Also how much longer are they going to have the monopoly on the line rental.

  R4 20:15 21 Jan 2005

All Line Rentals are paid in Advance so even if you pay on the 'Industry standard' 30 days from receiving the account you are still paying two months charges in advance.
There is no justification for a 'Late Payment' fee in these ciumstances.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5T review: Hands-on

Illustrator Andrés Lozano on his improv line work, brazen use of colours & hand sketching

iPhone X review

Comment envoyer gratuitement des gros fichiers ?