Credit Card charge correctly removed by DVLA

[the Omrud]

Hurray. My car tax is due on 1st February. I went onto the web site to
pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit card.
So I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!

/quote
There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or
personal credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all
other types of cards.
/unquote

--
David

[Clive Page]

That's good. Another small benefit of EU membership that, under present plans, will surely be lost in March 2019. It's funny that I couldn't find that trumpeted very loudly in the Daily Mail or Daily Express.

But a genuine question: how can the DVLA or other vendors distinguish between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?


--
Clive Page

[the Omrud]

On 15/01/2018 10:23, Clive Page wrote:
> On 13/01/2018 16:58, the Omrud wrote:
>> Hurray.  My car tax is due on 1st February.  I went onto the web site
>> to pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit
>> card. So I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!
>>
>> /quote
>> There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or
>> personal credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all
>> other types of cards.
>> /unquote
>
> That's good.  Another small benefit of EU membership that, under present
> plans, will surely be lost in March 2019.  It's funny that I couldn't
> find that trumpeted very loudly in the Daily Mail or Daily Express.

I read today that the Conservatives are taking credit for the outlawing
of these charges.

--
David

[Roland Perry]

In message <fc3dpv...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:23:59 on Mon, 15
Jan 2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

By the name of the account-holder, obviously.

I've never seen a genuine "corporate" one.

Despite an ingrained class-warfare-envy directed at hard working[tm]
employees who are required to put their entirely legitimate expenses on
a specified credit card in their own name, in every case I've seen
there's merely a promise by the employer that if everything looks kosher
once they've seen the expenses claim[1] they'll send the employee enough
funds to pay it off.

I wonder how well that'll work out for such Carillion employees the next
few weeks and months?

[1] The major advantage of Amex as such a specified card is that the
statement will have most of the detail already on it. It won't just
say you spent £300 on "an airline ticket", but will have the flight
numbers/times of the itinerary alongside.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Clive Page" <use...@page2.eu> wrote in message
news:fc3dpv...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13/01/2018 16:58, the Omrud wrote:
>> Hurray. My car tax is due on 1st February. I went onto the web site to
>> pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit card. So
>> I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!
>>
>> /quote
>> There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or personal
>> credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all other types
>> of cards.
>> /unquote
>
> That's good. Another small benefit of EU membership that, under present
> plans, will surely be lost in March 2019. It's funny that I couldn't find
> that trumpeted very loudly in the Daily Mail or Daily Express.

it was the direction of travel within HMG anyway

it almost certainly would have happened sooner or later without EU
intervention

[Paul Cummins]

In article <fc3dpv...@mid.individual.net>, use...@page2.eu (Clive

Page) wrote:

> But a genuine question: how can the DVLA or other vendors
> distinguish between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?

My personal card says so in the transaction - my business one does too.
The business card identifies as MC Business Debit.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:18:37 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>Despite an ingrained class-warfare-envy directed at hard working[tm]
>employees who are required to put their entirely legitimate expenses on
>a specified credit card in their own name, in every case I've seen
>there's merely a promise by the employer that if everything looks kosher
>once they've seen the expenses claim[1] they'll send the employee enough
>funds to pay it off.

I've had one that was settled by the company, they do exist.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2018011...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 10:31:00
on Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> But a genuine question: how can the DVLA or other vendors
>> distinguish between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?
>
>My personal card says so in the transaction - my business one does too.
>The business card identifies as MC Business Debit.

Sure that's a *credit* card?

<https://www.seb.ee/eng/business/everyday-banking/cards/mastercard-
business-debit-card>
--
Roland Perry

[AnthonyL]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 16:58:09 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
or more ago.

However I also understand that some organisations, including
government organisations, are withdrawing the credit card option which
is in itself limiting.

As I get cashback on my credit card I remain pleased that I can pay my
council tax on the card even though it means I have to go on-line and
do it manually every month as they don't do a recurring debit.

--
AnthonyL

[Ian Jackson]

In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,

AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>or more ago.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
thinks this is a good idea.

I am completely happy with outlawing addon charges for paying by debit
card. But credit cards are more expensive for the retailer and often
the consumer is bribed by the card company, out of the retailer's
money. And credit cards offer at least some interest-free credit.

I don't see any reason why people who can obtain, and choose to use, a
credit card, should be able to get those extra benefits for free - so
that people using a debit card, or cash (whether because they can't
get a credit card, or choose not to use one for this transaction) have
to pay a little extra (becaue the cost of credit cards is incorporated
in the price by the retailer, now).

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Roland Perry]

In message <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>, at 12:40:31 on Mon, 15 Jan
2018, AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> remarked:

>As I get cashback on my credit card I remain pleased that I can pay my
>council tax on the card even though it means I have to go on-line and
>do it manually every month as they don't do a recurring debit.

You only get cashback because the card company is leaching back to you
some of the commission/charges it makes to the retailer.

If the council is doing the right thing and only making a surcharge to
cover those costs, if they can no longer make a surcharge then that
cashback is coming from taxpayers paying by DD/Debit card/standing
order.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

On 15/01/2018 13:00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>> Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>> or more ago.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
> thinks this is a good idea.
>
> I am completely happy with outlawing addon charges for paying by debit
> card. But credit cards are more expensive for the retailer and often
> the consumer is bribed by the card company, out of the retailer's
> money. And credit cards offer at least some interest-free credit.
>
> I don't see any reason why people who can obtain, and choose to use, a
> credit card, should be able to get those extra benefits for free - so
> that people using a debit card, or cash (whether because they can't
> get a credit card, or choose not to use one for this transaction) have
> to pay a little extra (becaue the cost of credit cards is incorporated
> in the price by the retailer, now).
>

<applause>

But many in the EU are inclined to socialise costs as that usually
results in a cross-subsidy from richer to poorer.

By the way, I liked the way merchants in New York defeated a NY State
law against charges for credit cards: they argued successfully in the
Supreme Court that it breached their First Amendment "free speech"
rights to communicate costs to customers :) Mind you, under the NY law
merchants were allowed to give a discount for cash, which did seem to
make it a bit Through The Looking Glass.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Ian Jackson]

In article <95a8f75e-3ec1-fe18...@hotmail.com>,

Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 15/01/2018 13:00, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>> thinks this is a good idea.

...

><applause>
>
>But many in the EU are inclined to socialise costs as that usually
>results in a cross-subsidy from richer to poorer.

Usually this is true, as you say. And in those cases I support it.
For this policy I don't think that's the case, but maybe the people
behind it have seen stats saying otherwise.

That doesn't really explain why bodies like the Consumers Association
think it's a good idea. I doubt they support it because they like
redistributive cross-subsidies and think this is one.

>By the way, I liked the way merchants in New York defeated a NY State
>law against charges for credit cards: they argued successfully in the
>Supreme Court that it breached their First Amendment "free speech"
>rights to communicate costs to customers :) Mind you, under the NY law
>merchants were allowed to give a discount for cash, which did seem to
>make it a bit Through The Looking Glass.

USAian law is often quite mad.

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Clive Page wrote:
>
>> how can the DVLA or other vendors distinguish
>> between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?
>
> By the name of the account-holder, obviously.
> I've never seen a genuine "corporate" one.

There must be some data available to them, when I purchased something
from Amazon using my business credit card, they noticed and offered to
convert the amazon account into a business account (I took it for the
free delivery similar to prime, other features such as summarised
invoice data, 30 days credit and other shared info not especially
relevant for me).

[Roland Perry]

In message <gc7p5dhh197lbb474...@4ax.com>, at 12:25:12 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Neil Williams <spam...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>>Despite an ingrained class-warfare-envy directed at hard working[tm]
>>employees who are required to put their entirely legitimate expenses on
>>a specified credit card in their own name, in every case I've seen
>>there's merely a promise by the employer that if everything looks kosher
>>once they've seen the expenses claim[1] they'll send the employee enough
>>funds to pay it off.
>
>I've had one that was settled by the company, they do exist.

Did it have *your* name on it; and separately, if so was there an
agreement between you and the card company that it the company defaulted
then you were liable?

I saw one such scheme on offer many years ago, but the employee turned
down the company's kind offer.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:20:55 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

The first six digits of a card number will identify the network, the
issuer, the issuer's country, the card type (credit, debit, etc) and
an optional additional field which has values such as "classic",
"gold", "platinum", "infinite", "corporate", "business", etc. This
data requires a look-up table, since it can't be determined
algorithmically, but the necessary tables are readily available at
moderate[1] cost, either to download or to access via an API.

This data is, as you might expect, commonly used by online retailers,
as it is a very useful indicator of the financial status of the
customer. In particular, if you get a customer with one of the
extremely rare "infinite" cards, you know you are dealing with someone
very special indeed. More prosaically, it's a good way of identifying
potential trade customers, who can be attracted with different types
of offers and facilities to those preferred by consumers. And, given
that they tend to represent consumers with different financial
circumstances, you might also want to tailor your marketing
differently to users of "platinum" or "gold" cards as opposed to
"classic" cards.[2]

[1] In corporate terms, of course. Typically, you'd be looking at
around $500 for a single-user annual licence.

[2] The reason I know all this is because, in a previous job, part of
my role was doing precisely this analysis on our customrs :-)

Mark

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tyYlhm7N...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <fc3dpv...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:23:59 on Mon, 15 Jan
> 2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
>>On 13/01/2018 16:58, the Omrud wrote:
>>> Hurray. My car tax is due on 1st February. I went onto the web site to
>>> pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit card.
>>> So I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!
>>> /quote
>>> There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or
>>> personal credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all
>>> other types of cards.
>>> /unquote
>>
>>That's good. Another small benefit of EU membership that, under present
>>plans, will surely be lost in March 2019. It's funny that I couldn't find
>>that trumpeted very loudly in the Daily Mail or Daily Express.
>>
>>But a genuine question: how can the DVLA or other vendors distinguish
>>between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?
>
> By the name of the account-holder, obviously.

I don't think so

ITYF that cards issued to company employees with their own name on, but as
part of a corporate card scheme count as corporate cards (and thus liable
for fees) here

tim

[tim...]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:xyF*8L...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>or more ago.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
> thinks this is a good idea.

Nope, I agree with you entirely

tim

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:49:24 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:xyF*8L...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
>> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>>or more ago.
>>
>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>> thinks this is a good idea.
>
>Nope, I agree with you entirely

I would have preferred an enforceable rule that the surcharge could
not be more than the actual cost to the supplier of using that method
of payment. Part of the problem is that some suppliers were clearly
ramping up surcharges well beyond those necessary to cover costs,
particularly in cases where either there was no practical alternative
supplier or fewer practical alternatives for payment.

However, I suspect that any such rule would be very difficult to
enforce, not least because the total cost of using a payment system
can't easily be reduced to a specific value for a specific payment.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <p3ibf4$10b$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:47:13 on Mon, 15 Jan
2018, tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>But a genuine question: how can the DVLA or other vendors distinguish
>>>between a "personal" credit card and an impersonal one?
>>
>> By the name of the account-holder, obviously.
>
>I don't think so
>
>ITYF that cards issued to company employees with their own name on, but
>as part of a corporate card scheme count as corporate cards (and thus
>liable for fees) here

The "account holder" is the person who has to pay the bill. So-called
corporate cards I've seen it's the employee, although they in turn have
been promised by the employer that all valid expenditure on the card
will be reimbursed back. Otherwise it's just far too much of a blank
cheque for employers, and card companies don't want to get stuck in the
middle of a dispute between employer and employee about whether a charge
was made within the expenses rules.
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-01-15, Robin wrote:

> By the way, I liked the way merchants in New York defeated a NY State
> law against charges for credit cards: they argued successfully in the
> Supreme Court that it breached their First Amendment "free speech"
> rights to communicate costs to customers :) Mind you, under the NY law
> merchants were allowed to give a discount for cash, which did seem to
> make it a bit Through The Looking Glass.

I'm surprised by this. AIUI, the situation in the USA is that the
Visa and MasterCard merchant agreements prohibit card surcharges
(although they allow cash discounts, providing card users are paying
no more than the "headline price"). Because of that, I wasn't aware
of any reason for laws prohibiting card surcharges, although I can
believe some states might do so.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ujhp5dth1liqe7vvu...@4ax.com>, at 15:23:22 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>>>or more ago.
>>>
>>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>>> thinks this is a good idea.
>>
>>Nope, I agree with you entirely
>
>I would have preferred an enforceable rule that the surcharge could
>not be more than the actual cost to the supplier of using that method
>of payment. Part of the problem is that some suppliers were clearly
>ramping up surcharges well beyond those necessary to cover costs,
>particularly in cases where either there was no practical alternative
>supplier or fewer practical alternatives for payment.
>
>However, I suspect that any such rule would be very difficult to
>enforce, not least because the total cost of using a payment system
>can't easily be reduced to a specific value for a specific payment.

And it would also bear on the commercial confidentiality between
merchant services and merchant regarding the cost of handling credit
cards. And especially for smaller outfits using Worldpay/Paypal type the
amount of charge is subject to change - not just because of switching
merchant services, but due to things like volume of business.

"Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant terminals of
various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller firms. It'll be
interesting to see if this pushes some small retailers (the sort who
have had "50p surcharge if you insist on using a card" back into being a
'cash only' business.

ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
as credit card?
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-01-15, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:49:24 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:xyF*8L...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
>>> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>>>or more ago.
>>>
>>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>>> thinks this is a good idea.
>>
>>Nope, I agree with you entirely
>
> I would have preferred an enforceable rule that the surcharge could
> not be more than the actual cost to the supplier of using that method
> of payment. Part of the problem is that some suppliers were clearly
> ramping up surcharges well beyond those necessary to cover costs,
> particularly in cases where either there was no practical alternative
> supplier or fewer practical alternatives for payment.

I think that would be fair with the *difference* in payment methods
costs as the limit, taking the cost of cash handling into account.

> However, I suspect that any such rule would be very difficult to
> enforce, not least because the total cost of using a payment system
> can't easily be reduced to a specific value for a specific payment.

True.

[the Omrud]

On 15/01/2018 15:35, Roland Perry wrote:

> "Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant terminals of
> various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller firms. It'll be
> interesting to see if this pushes some small retailers (the sort who
> have had "50p surcharge if you insist on using a card" back into being a
> 'cash only' business.
>
> ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
>    as credit card?

Yes, it does.

--
David

[tim...]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujhp5dth1liqe7vvu...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:49:24 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:xyF*8L...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
>>> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>>>or more ago.
>>>
>>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>>> thinks this is a good idea.
>>
>>Nope, I agree with you entirely
>
> I would have preferred an enforceable rule that the surcharge could
> not be more than the actual cost to the supplier of using that method
> of payment. Part of the problem is that some suppliers were clearly
> ramping up surcharges well beyond those necessary to cover costs,
> particularly in cases where either there was no practical alternative
> supplier or fewer practical alternatives for payment.

though part of the problem is that retailers have to pay minimum per month
charges for the "hire" of their "terminal"

this number disappears into the noise if you have 1000s of transactions per
month, but is significant if you only have 100

> However, I suspect that any such rule would be very difficult to
> enforce, not least because the total cost of using a payment system
> can't easily be reduced to a specific value for a specific payment.

yep

my (flat) managing agent justify a very high charge for operating a direct
debit scheme because they outsource it to someone who charges them (that
high fee)

They also have/had a very high fee for credit/debit cards

I wonder what they are going to do now?

The next annual meeting could be fun :-) (though I won't be bringing it up,
I have bigger fish to fry)

tim

[Chris R]

On 15/01/2018 13:00, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In article <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>,
> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>> Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>> or more ago.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
> thinks this is a good idea.
>
> I am completely happy with outlawing addon charges for paying by debit
> card. But credit cards are more expensive for the retailer and often
> the consumer is bribed by the card company, out of the retailer's
> money. And credit cards offer at least some interest-free credit.
>
> I don't see any reason why people who can obtain, and choose to use, a
> credit card, should be able to get those extra benefits for free - so
> that people using a debit card, or cash (whether because they can't
> get a credit card, or choose not to use one for this transaction) have
> to pay a little extra (becaue the cost of credit cards is incorporated
> in the price by the retailer, now).
>

That's an entirely reasonable argument, and the reason the old
insistence of the credit card companies on no surcharges was deemed
unlawful, but as always there is a balance to be struck, and the
transparency of advertised charges has won out in the end, rightly in my
view. Consumers need to see the actual cost of what they will pay, and
when the majority pay by card, it is not honest to advertise a price
lower than they will actually pay. Paying by card is no longer exceptional.

Businesses can and do absorb lots of costs that differ between
customers. They are also in a position to shop around and reduce the
fees they are charged for credit card use.

The previous rule about only collecting the actual cost had clearly not
been effective.

Where I do have some sympathy is for businesses that collect money on
behalf of third parties, or indeed bodies such as local authorities that
have to collect a fixed, regulated charge. In those cases the rule is
likely to cause the organisation to stop accepting cards.

I wonder if there will be problems for organisations offering discounts
for specific payment methods, such as direct debit. If the discounted
method is the only alternative to cards, that looks like a charge for
cards. And of course the ban is wider than cards.
--
Chris R

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:35:10 +0000, Chris R
<invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:


>I wonder if there will be problems for organisations offering discounts
>for specific payment methods, such as direct debit. If the discounted
>method is the only alternative to cards, that looks like a charge for
>cards. And of course the ban is wider than cards.

Discounts are still permissible. So one solution, at least for
organisations which set their own prices (which isn't an option for
tax payments, of course), is to raise the base price and then offer a
discount for certain payment methods.

But that is part of the intention. A major target of these measures
are suppliers which use Ryanair-style pricing, advertising a low
headline price but making it very difficult to actually get that price
without accepting very restricted conditions such as the use of just
one payment method. The aim is that the price you pay can never be
more than the advertised price, although under certain circumstances
the price you pay may be lower.

To some degree, therefore, this is all about manipulating people's
perceptions. It's unlikely to make many things actually any cheaper.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <rser5dh080fafmhei...@4ax.com>, at 09:01:07 on
Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>Discounts are still permissible. So one solution, at least for
>organisations which set their own prices (which isn't an option for
>tax payments, of course), is to raise the base price and then offer a
>discount for certain payment methods.

Bck in the day, if you bought a round of drinks which came to £10.05, a
cheery "£10 for cash" would normally be accepted. Nowadays, the
"Computer[ised till] says no", so you are in danger of getting lumbered
with £9.90 of shrapnel (£5 notes seem to be back in short supply again).

--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2018-01-15, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <ujhp5dth1liqe7vvu...@4ax.com>, at 15:23:22 on
> Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>>>>Good. I thought there had been an attempt to bring this in a decade
>>>>>or more ago.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't understand why everyone
>>>> thinks this is a good idea.
>>>
>>>Nope, I agree with you entirely
>>
>>I would have preferred an enforceable rule that the surcharge could
>>not be more than the actual cost to the supplier of using that method
>>of payment. Part of the problem is that some suppliers were clearly
>>ramping up surcharges well beyond those necessary to cover costs,
>>particularly in cases where either there was no practical alternative
>>supplier or fewer practical alternatives for payment.
>>
>>However, I suspect that any such rule would be very difficult to
>>enforce, not least because the total cost of using a payment system
>>can't easily be reduced to a specific value for a specific payment.
>
> And it would also bear on the commercial confidentiality between
> merchant services and merchant regarding the cost of handling credit
> cards. And especially for smaller outfits using Worldpay/Paypal type the
> amount of charge is subject to change - not just because of switching
> merchant services, but due to things like volume of business.

I'm not sure why there's any public interest in protecting that
commercial confidentiality.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <p3kdg3$d0n$1...@dont-email.me>,

Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 15/01/2018 13:00, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I don't see any reason why people who can obtain, and choose to use, a
>> credit card, should be able to get those extra benefits for free - so
>> that people using a debit card, or cash (whether because they can't
>> get a credit card, or choose not to use one for this transaction) have
>> to pay a little extra (becaue the cost of credit cards is incorporated
>> in the price by the retailer, now).
>>
>That's an entirely reasonable argument, and the reason the old
>insistence of the credit card companies on no surcharges was deemed
>unlawful, but as always there is a balance to be struck, and the
>transparency of advertised charges has won out in the end, rightly in my
>view. Consumers need to see the actual cost of what they will pay, and
>when the majority pay by card, it is not honest to advertise a price
>lower than they will actually pay. Paying by card is no longer exceptional.

You say "pay by card" which is conflating credit and debit cards -
precisely the thing I was complaining about.

>The previous rule about only collecting the actual cost had clearly not
>been effective.

The rule should be that a creditor, and a supplier to consumers, must
accept payment without surcharge by at least one of:
- debit card (with list of payment networks which must be accepted)
- UK bank transfer (BACS or Faster Payments)
- cash (not applicable to distance sales)
- cheque (drawn on UK bank) (maybe posted at payer's expense)

The details to be in Regulations and/or rules by a suitable regulator.

[AnthonyL]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50:56 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

The council was not previously adding a surcharge.

I pay quite a few items by credit card:

Phone top ups
Electricity
Telecom call through
House insurance
Car insurance
Shopping
Petrol
Council tax
Pub (over )
Much internet purchases
Rail travel

None of the above previously applied a credit card charge.

I sometimes accept a credit card charge when it was applied merely for
the protection of a credit card.

Small retailers I can understand especially with AMEX (which they
often don't accept) but government bodies, airlines - it is all part
of the cost of payment collection and I'm sure they've all got special
deals.




--
AnthonyL

[Ian Jackson]

In article <5a5df2fe...@85.214.115.223>,

AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50:56 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>In message <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>, at 12:40:31 on Mon, 15 Jan
>>2018, AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> remarked:

>>>As I get cashback on my credit card [...]

>>
>>If the council is doing the right thing and only making a surcharge to
>>cover those costs, if they can no longer make a surcharge then that
>>cashback is coming from taxpayers paying by DD/Debit card/standing
>>order.
>
>The council was not previously adding a surcharge.
>
>I pay quite a few items by credit card:
>
>Phone top ups
>Electricity
>Telecom call through
>House insurance
>Car insurance
>Shopping
>Petrol
>Council tax
>Pub (over )
>Much internet purchases
>Rail travel
>
>None of the above previously applied a credit card charge.

IMO they should do. Certainly for example (assuming for the sake of
argument that we had the same council) I don't see why I should be
forced to pay your credit card cashback through my council tax bill.
IMO the council ought to stop you paying by credit card.

The situation is a little less clear when the payee is a business -
after all, it's then their money, unlike the council's money which is
in some sense mine - but I have used many businesses who make a
surcharge for credit card payments.

I don't see why I should have to pay extra for my phone bill or my
electricity or my insurance, because you like the cashback. I think
pressurising companies into not making a surcharge was iniquitous, and
the new law is worse.

As I say, it is incomprehensible to me why the Consumers Association
think the new law is a good thing.

[Robin]

On 16/01/2018 12:48, AnthonyL wrote:

>
> Small retailers I can understand especially with AMEX (which they
> often don't accept) but government bodies, airlines - it is all part
> of the cost of payment collection and I'm sure they've all got special
> deals.
>

I invite you to consider how much taxpayers could save if they paid all
their tax - including PAYE deductions - and NICs by credit cards which
gave cash back. And how much the public purse would lose.

You can do the sums yourself as HMRC used to publish the costs to them
of accepting credit cards - anywhere from 0.4 to 2.4 per cent

https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/revisedchargesforpayinghmrcbycreditcard


Ready reckoner: 1 per cent of HMRC revenues is about 5 billion pounds.

[Robin]

On 16/01/2018 13:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As I say, it is incomprehensible to me why the Consumers Association
> think the new law is a good thing.

You may not like the argument but I submit they think it's a good thing
because it creates a level playing field. And the CA (like so many
people who claim the moral high ground) seem to think that getting rid
of distinctions (with scope for people to make what turns out to be the
wrong decision) must be "fairer" and hence "better".


They played their hand well by pointing to the worst offenders - eg
budget airlines.

[Chris R]

On 16/01/2018 13:02, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In article <5a5df2fe...@85.214.115.223>,
> AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:50:56 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> In message <5a5ca09b...@85.214.115.223>, at 12:40:31 on Mon, 15 Jan
>>> 2018, AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> remarked:
>>>> As I get cashback on my credit card [...]
>>>
>>> If the council is doing the right thing and only making a surcharge to
>>> cover those costs, if they can no longer make a surcharge then that
>>> cashback is coming from taxpayers paying by DD/Debit card/standing
>>> order.

>>

>> None of the above previously applied a credit card charge.
>
> IMO they should do. Certainly for example (assuming for the sake of
> argument that we had the same council) I don't see why I should be
> forced to pay your credit card cashback through my council tax bill.
> IMO the council ought to stop you paying by credit card.
>

> I don't see why I should have to pay extra for my phone bill or my
> electricity or my insurance, because you like the cashback. I think
> pressurising companies into not making a surcharge was iniquitous, and
> the new law is worse.
>

The most expensive way of taking payment, as a business (or presumably
as a local authority), is in cash. Cheques also incur significant
charges. But no-one suggests those costs should be passed on.
--
Chris R

[Chris R]

If that sort of throughput were expected, the cost would fall
considerably. HMRC is perfectly capable of negotiating a deal with a
merchant services provider, or HMG could form its own. Also, bear in
mind that HMRC will also have bank charges and internal costs for
accepting other forms of payment. Nothing is free.
--
Chris R

[Ian Jackson]

In article <p3ku5o$i9b$1...@dont-email.me>,

No-one is giving kickbacks to taxpayers to pay their council tax in
cash or by cheque.

[Robin]

On 16/01/2018 13:19, Chris R wrote:

> The most expensive way of taking payment, as a business (or presumably
> as a local authority), is in cash. Cheques also incur significant
> charges. But no-one suggests those costs should be passed on.

One argument as regards the public sector is that cash and cheques are
used disproportionately by people relatively poor, elderly or less able
to manage other means of payment.

There's also the fact that the PO knew full well the political fallout
if they played the "your local PO may have to close because......." card

[Robin]

On 16/01/2018 13:27, Chris R wrote:
> On 16/01/2018 13:06, Robin wrote:
>> On 16/01/2018 12:48, AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Small retailers I can understand especially with AMEX (which they
>>> often don't accept) but government bodies, airlines - it is all part
>>> of the cost of payment collection and I'm sure they've all got special
>>> deals.
>>>
>>
>> I invite you to consider how much taxpayers could save if they paid
>> all their tax - including PAYE deductions - and NICs by credit cards
>> which gave cash back.  And how much the public purse would lose.
>>
>> You can do the sums yourself as HMRC used to publish the costs to them
>> of accepting credit cards - anywhere from 0.4 to 2.4 per cent
>>
>> https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/revisedchargesforpayinghmrcbycreditcard
>>
>> Ready reckoner: 1 per cent of HMRC revenues is about 5 billion pounds.
>
> If that sort of throughput were expected, the cost would fall
> considerably. HMRC is perfectly capable of negotiating a deal with a
> merchant services provider, or HMG could form its own.

I do not have up to date information to dispute that but wonder where
you expect HMRC to be able to beat down the credit card charges. AIUI a
large part of the charges is not "fixed costs" but costs which are pro
rata to the number and value of throughput - eg interbank charges
(capped at 0.3 per cent now but that's still a big fraction of some of
the figures), cashback to account holders, interest free periods,
fraud. That's why the HMRC charges for business card were so much
higher than for personal cards.

> Also, bear in
> mind that HMRC will also have bank charges and internal costs for
> accepting other forms of payment. Nothing is free.

Yes. But for debit cards and BACS it was a flat fee last time I looked
and falling fast. A small business could get around 25 pence. HMRC
will get better than that. And as a *percentage* of typical HMRC
receipts I'd reckon that much less than the minimum they managed for
credit cards.

[Roland Perry]

In message <p3ku5o$i9b$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:19:52 on Tue, 16 Jan
2018, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

>From my business bank (Santander) which true to its word has never
charged me for any transactions. Although they do insist I only pay in
cash via the in-branch ATM rather than over the counter. I suspect
that's because the machine is allegedly better at spotting counterfeit
notes than the staff:

"all your standard day-to-day business banking is included, such
as Direct Debits, cash withdrawals and cheque deposits."

>But no-one suggests those costs should be passed on.

The problem with passing on any cash deposit charges (do you have a
figure in mind for large business?) is that the cost for any individual
transaction is indeterminate. What if the business pays its suppliers in
cash, with no associated surcharge, rather than putting it into the
bank?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <85c33c44-6e69-9bae...@hotmail.com>, at
14:07:58 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>> Also, bear in mind that HMRC will also have bank charges and
>>internal costs for accepting other forms of payment. Nothing is free.
>
>Yes. But for debit cards and BACS it was a flat fee last time I looked
>and falling fast. A small business could get around 25 pence. HMRC
>will get better than that. And as a *percentage* of typical HMRC
>receipts I'd reckon that much less than the minimum they managed for
>credit cards.

Very true. While the pub might accept a card for £5, it's extraordinary
unlikely I'll ever be paying less than say £500 a pop to HMRC.

Having said that, I got lent on yesterday to pay a financial services
organisation £2.05, and they'd only accept a cheque-in-the-post (to a
Freepost address). It's a marvel they ever bothered to try to collect
it. Just flexing their muscles I suppose, because they can, and to
encourage the others...
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <p3kujp$i9b$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:21 on Tue, 16 Jan
2018, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

>On 16/01/2018 13:06, Robin wrote:
>> On 16/01/2018 12:48, AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Small retailers I can understand especially with AMEX (which they
>>> often don't accept) but government bodies, airlines - it is all part
>>> of the cost of payment collection and I'm sure they've all got special
>>> deals.
>>>
>> I invite you to consider how much taxpayers could save if they paid
>>all their tax - including PAYE deductions - and NICs by credit cards
>>which gave cash back.  And how much the public purse would lose.
>> You can do the sums yourself as HMRC used to publish the costs to
>>them of accepting credit cards - anywhere from 0.4 to 2.4 per cent
>>
>>https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/revisedchargesforpaying
>>hmrcbycreditcard Ready reckoner: 1 per cent of HMRC revenues is
>>about 5 billion pounds.
>
>If that sort of throughput were expected, the cost would fall
>considerably. HMRC is perfectly capable of negotiating a deal with a
>merchant services provider, or HMG could form its own.

Reportedly 0.4 to 2.4 percent (see above). Given the precision of the
data (four significant figures) I'd expect them to quite closely reflect
the actual negotiated charges.

Much less than the small trader (where 2.5% is typical).

>Also, bear in mind that HMRC will also have bank charges and internal
>costs for accepting other forms of payment. Nothing is free.

--

Roland Perry

[Graham Murray]

Or you tender a £10 note plus 5p in coin.

[Roland Perry]

In message <87mv1da...@gmurray.org.uk>, at 14:50:14 on Tue, 16 Jan
2018, Graham Murray <news...@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:

>>>Discounts are still permissible. So one solution, at least for
>>>organisations which set their own prices (which isn't an option for
>>>tax payments, of course), is to raise the base price and then offer a
>>>discount for certain payment methods.
>>
>> Bck in the day, if you bought a round of drinks which came to £10.05,
>> a cheery "£10 for cash" would normally be accepted. Nowadays, the
>> "Computer[ised till] says no", so you are in danger of getting
>> lumbered with £9.90 of shrapnel (£5 notes seem to be back in short
>> supply again).
>
>Or you tender a £10 note plus 5p in coin.

Only if, in our increasingly cashless society, you have a 5p coin.
Rather than, as yesterday, all I had was a £20 note from an ATM.
--
Roland Perry

[Vir Campestris]

On 16/01/2018 15:30, Roland Perry wrote:
> Only if, in our increasingly cashless society, you have a 5p coin.
> Rather than, as yesterday, all I had was a £20 note from an ATM.

And there you have the root of the problem. Why would I want £20 notes?
If it's over a tenner it's likely going on a card.

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <p3lqbb$2h0$4...@dont-email.me>, at 21:20:44 on Tue, 16 Jan
2018, Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>On 16/01/2018 15:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Only if, in our increasingly cashless society, you have a 5p coin.
>>Rather than, as yesterday, all I had was a £20 note from an ATM.
>
>And there you have the root of the problem. Why would I want £20 notes?

I'd much prefer the ATM was better at dispensing smaller notes, but the
particular one I used often only has £20's.

>If it's over a tenner it's likely going on a card.

There's at least one pub (and numerous mon-and-pop shops, let alone
market traders) in my town that don't take cards. Then there are the
ones with lower-limits: typically £5. I'm not sure if this new law
prohibits such limits.

On the practical side, card use can be very slow. There are plenty of
retail terminals still in circulation that appear to be making dial-up
calls for each transaction.
--
Roland Perry

[AnthonyL]

On 16 Jan 2018 13:02:42 +0000 (GMT), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

And perhaps I should object that the Council Tax has to cover chasing
and attempting to recover bad debts. If the payee had used their
credit card then the card company takes on the burden.


--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

GPWM!

--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

Maybe some folk would be more keen to pay their tax. And how come the
HMRC can't work out the cost of using credit cards to within 2%?

But in any event you are being somewhat silly. Is there any option on
how to pay PAYE nowadays, thought it was all automatic and on-line as
well as NICS except voluntary (that deserves an additional reward) and
Self-employed.

--
AnthonyL

[Roland Perry]

In message <5a5f40bf...@85.214.115.223>, at 12:29:18 on Wed, 17

Jan 2018, AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> remarked:

>>You can do the sums yourself as HMRC used to publish the costs to them
>>of accepting credit cards - anywhere from 0.4 to 2.4 per cent
>>
>>https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/revisedchargesforpayinghmrcbycreditcard
>>
>>
>>Ready reckoner: 1 per cent of HMRC revenues is about 5 billion pounds.
>>
>
>Maybe some folk would be more keen to pay their tax. And how come the
>HMRC can't work out the cost of using credit cards to within 2%?

It's a range of different commissions for different cards.

Most SMEs will be offered a single "swings and roundabouts" rate of
around 2.5% by the organisation doing their clearing. Although that rate
will very from one clearer to another, and also at times vary depending
on your monthly transaction value.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

On 17/01/2018 12:29, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:06:28 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2018 12:48, AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Small retailers I can understand especially with AMEX (which they
>>> often don't accept) but government bodies, airlines - it is all part
>>> of the cost of payment collection and I'm sure they've all got special
>>> deals.
>>>
>>
>> I invite you to consider how much taxpayers could save if they paid all
>> their tax - including PAYE deductions - and NICs by credit cards which
>> gave cash back. And how much the public purse would lose.
>>
>> You can do the sums yourself as HMRC used to publish the costs to them
>> of accepting credit cards - anywhere from 0.4 to 2.4 per cent
>>
>> https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/revisedchargesforpayinghmrcbycreditcard
>>
>>
>> Ready reckoner: 1 per cent of HMRC revenues is about 5 billion pounds.
>>
>
> Maybe some folk would be more keen to pay their tax. And how come the
> HMRC can't work out the cost of using credit cards to within 2%?

It was a *range* of costs from 0,.4 to 2,.4 which, as another pointed
out, was given to 4 sig figs for each kind of card. They are set out if
you follow the link I gave.

> But in any event you are being somewhat silly. Is there any option on
> how to pay PAYE nowadays, thought it was all automatic and on-line as
> well as NICS except voluntary (that deserves an additional reward) and
> Self-employed.
>

I am unclear why you think I am being silly.

But to answer your question, there is not now an option to account for
PAYE by credit card (same as other tax payments) but there was until 13
January.

https://www.gov.uk/pay-paye-tax/debit-or-credit-card

You will see there that employers are not even *required* to pay online
let alone by "automatic" means. Even employers who have no religious
convictions can post a cheque or stroll off to a bank with a sack of
coins if they wish (and the bank is willing).

[Roland Perry]

In message <eeopquZP...@perry.co.uk>, at 15:35:43 on Mon, 15 Jan
2018, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>"Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant terminals of
>various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller firms. It'll be
>interesting to see if this pushes some small retailers (the sort who
>have had "50p surcharge if you insist on using a card" back into being
>a 'cash only' business.
>
>ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
> as credit card?

Straw Poll: Where I'm having lunch today has a rather officious sign
saying that now their former surcharge for taking credit/debit cards
for purchases under Ł10 has been outlawed, they'll only take cash for
transactions under a fiver. Plus they don't accept Scottish notes [this
is East Anglia].
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

On 07/02/18 12:41, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <eeopquZP...@perry.co.uk>, at 15:35:43 on Mon, 15 Jan
> 2018, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> "Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant terminals
>> of various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller firms. It'll
>> be interesting to see if this pushes some small retailers (the sort
>> who have had "50p surcharge if you insist on using a card" back into
>> being a 'cash only' business.
>>
>> ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
>>   as credit card?
>
> Straw Poll: Where I'm having lunch today has a rather officious sign
> saying that now their former surcharge for taking credit/debit cards

> for purchases under £10 has been outlawed, they'll only take cash for

> transactions under a fiver. Plus they don't accept Scottish notes [this
> is East Anglia].

Transaction limits for credit card transactions are far from new. £5 or
£10 are typical limits.

As for Scottish Bank notes, in the past I've not had a problem 'up
north' (ie near to Scotland but in England). While I have a (humorous)
definition of 'The North', I've not carried out any tests to see where
the 'limits' are in terms of ready acceptance of Scottish Bank notes.

I have both 'spent' them in London and even received then in change
there- although not recently. Other than 'up north', I've not tried
elsewhere (other than Scotland of course).

[Sara Merriman]

Just curious - why do you use so many sets of quote marks when posting?

[Roland Perry]

In message <p5f01r$g1e$3...@dont-email.me>, at 13:47:39 on Wed, 7 Feb 2018,
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>>> "Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant terminals
>>>of various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller firms. It'll
>>>be interesting to see if this pushes some small retailers (the sort
>>>who have had "50p surcharge if you insist on using a card" back into
>>>being a 'cash only' business.
>>>
>>> ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
>>>   as credit card?
>> Straw Poll: Where I'm having lunch today has a rather officious sign
>>saying that now their former surcharge for taking credit/debit cards
>> for purchases under £10 has been outlawed, they'll only take cash for
>>transactions under a fiver. Plus they don't accept Scottish notes
>>[this is East Anglia].
>
>Transaction limits for credit card transactions are far from new. £5 or
>£10 are typical limits.

What's new is people applying a floor limit (the £5) now surcharges have
been banned.

It means, for example, you can't buy one drink with a card at all,
unless you top the order up with, say, a vastly overpriced packet of
crisps.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

Which is exactly how it was in the past in some places before the change
you refer to.

In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused a new
policy. The policy of a min transaction size may be more common since
the removal of surcharges but the two may not be related.


I don't recall such a limit for using a debit card but then I don't
often use a debit card.

[Pelican]

The takeaway message may not be exactly what you intended.

[Roland Perry]

In message <p5fkjm$6bb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:30 on Wed, 7 Feb 2018,

Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>On 07/02/2018 18:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <p5f01r$g1e$3...@dont-email.me>, at 13:47:39 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>2018, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>>>>> "Total costs" are also not just the commissions - merchant
>>>>>terminals of various kinds can be relatively expensive for smaller
>>>>>firms. It'll be interesting to see if this pushes some small
>>>>>retailers (the sort who have had "50p surcharge if you insist on
>>>>>using a card" back into being a 'cash only' business.
>>>>>
>>>>> ps Anyone know if this new scheme outlaws debit card surcharges as well
>>>>>   as credit card?
>>>>  Straw Poll: Where I'm having lunch today has a rather officious
>>>>sign saying that now their former surcharge for taking credit/debit
>>>>

>>>> for purchases under Ł10 has been outlawed, they'll only take cash

>>>>for transactions under a fiver. Plus they don't accept Scottish
>>>>notes [this  is East Anglia].
>>>

>>> Transaction limits for credit card transactions are far from new. Ł5
>>>or Ł10 are typical limits.
>> What's new is people applying a floor limit (the Ł5) now surcharges

>>have been banned.
>> It means, for example, you can't buy one drink with a card at all,
>>unless you top the order up with, say, a vastly overpriced packet of
>>crisps.
>
>Which is exactly how it was in the past in some places before the
>change you refer to.

But not in the place I was yesterday, nor I suspect many similar ones.

Rather than have a cash-only policy for small transactions, they had a
"surcharge if under a tenner" policy.

>In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused a new
>policy.

It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.

>The policy of a min transaction size may be more common since the
>removal of surcharges but the two may not be related.

The words "because of the change in the law" on the notice I saw is a
bit of a give-away.

>I don't recall such a limit for using a debit card but then I don't
>often use a debit card.

The smaller the trader the more likely, in my experience, that they lump
together all cards for a limit/surcharge, whether they be credit cards
or debit cards. It's possible that's because their mom-and-pop-shop
merchant services provider may lump them together, or simply because
they don't trust the staff to be able to reliably tell the difference
between debit and credit cards.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

On 08/02/2018 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <p5fkjm$6bb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:30 on Wed, 7 Feb 2018,
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>> In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused a
>> new policy.
>
> It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.

A lot of smaller shops have had that policy for ages. They take too much
of a hit on the transaction otherwise. Many smaller restaurants will not
take Amex cards under any circumstances because of high merchant fees.

>> The policy of a min transaction size may be more common since the
>> removal of surcharges but the two may not be related.
>
> The words "because of the change in the law" on the notice I saw is a
> bit of a give-away.
>
>> I don't recall such a limit for using a debit card but then I don't
>> often use a debit card.
>
> The smaller the trader the more likely, in my experience, that they lump
> together all cards for a limit/surcharge, whether they be credit cards
> or debit cards. It's possible that's because their mom-and-pop-shop
> merchant services provider may lump them together, or simply because
> they don't trust the staff to be able to reliably tell the difference
> between debit and credit cards.

I'd guess at a bit of both. Most of the small shops I know won't take
cards for transactions under £10 (and that was true even before this
change). Some of them have newer terminals that will accept contactless
but most have elderly card machines that still do ET phone home.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <p5h7b7$18m9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:04:23 on Thu, 8 Feb
2018, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>On 08/02/2018 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <p5fkjm$6bb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:30 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>2018, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>
>>> In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused a
>>>new policy.
>> It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.
>
>A lot of smaller shops have had that policy for ages.

What's new - and I stress *new* as a result of the change in the law, is
shops changing *to* a cash-only policy for smaller transactions (having
previously accepted cards, albeit with a surcharge).

The NEW thing, is not being able to make a (say) £3 transaction with a
card *AT ANY PRICE*, unless you pad the transaction with an unwanted
item.

>They take too much of a hit on the transaction otherwise. Many smaller
>restaurants will not take Amex cards under any circumstances because of
>high merchant fees.
>
>>> The policy of a min transaction size may be more common since the
>>>removal of surcharges but the two may not be related.
>> The words "because of the change in the law" on the notice I saw is
>>a bit of a give-away.
>>
>>> I don't recall such a limit for using a debit card but then I don't
>>>often use a debit card.
>> The smaller the trader the more likely, in my experience, that they
>>lump together all cards for a limit/surcharge, whether they be credit
>>cards or debit cards. It's possible that's because their
>>mom-and-pop-shop merchant services provider may lump them together,
>>or simply because they don't trust the staff to be able to reliably
>>tell the difference between debit and credit cards.
>
>I'd guess at a bit of both. Most of the small shops I know won't take
>cards for transactions under £10 (and that was true even before this
>change). Some of them have newer terminals that will accept contactless
>but most have elderly card machines that still do ET phone home.

You are conflating contactless with dial-up. I've seen them co-existing
on a terminal.
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <JLa8P+qm...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry

<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> You are conflating contactless with dial-up. I've seen them co-existing
> on a terminal.

Very true, my local shop takes contactless but always dials through.
Takes ages. They also don't take any card payments at less than £5.

[Roland Perry]

In message <080220181507268229%sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
15:07:26 on Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:

>> You are conflating contactless with dial-up. I've seen them co-existing
>> on a terminal.
>
>Very true, my local shop takes contactless but always dials through.
>Takes ages. They also don't take any card payments at less than £5.

I've remembered where I last saw it - my dentist [both colloquially and
TM]. But they probably don't have anything on the price list under a
tenner! Most if it's labour at about £100/hr.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

On 08/02/2018 13:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <p5h7b7$18m9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:04:23 on Thu, 8 Feb
> 2018, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 08/02/2018 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <p5fkjm$6bb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:30 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>> 2018,  Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused a
>>>> new policy.
>>>  It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.
>>
>> A lot of smaller shops have had that policy for ages.
>
> What's new - and I stress *new* as a result of the change in the law, is
> shops changing *to* a cash-only policy for smaller transactions (having
> previously accepted cards, albeit with a surcharge).
>
> The NEW thing, is not being able to make a (say) £3 transaction with a
> card *AT ANY PRICE*, unless you pad the transaction with an unwanted item.

That isn't new in my experience, it was quite common in small shops etc.
Signs, such as "Credit Cards not accepted under £5" (The amount could
vary from place to place.) Sometimes all cards were indicated as being
refused under the limit but this was less common in my experience.

I don't recall seeing any indicating a surcharge under some limit, at
least in shops, but then I tend to pay only passing interest- I don't
tend to use a Card for a small transaction, unless there is a reason (eg
left cash at home).

I don't even recall a surcharge in shops for years- online etc yes- but
not in 'face to face' transactions.

I'm not defending surcharges or these limits on small transactions, I'm
simply relating my experience which differs from yours.

I always try to avoid surcharges (I can't recall paying any for years)
so I would be aware of being charged them.

[Roland Perry]

In message <p5hl97$eoi$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:02:15 on Thu, 8 Feb 2018,
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>On 08/02/2018 13:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <p5h7b7$18m9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:04:23 on Thu, 8 Feb
>>2018, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 08/02/2018 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <p5fkjm$6bb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:30 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>2018,  Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not caused
>>>>>a new policy.
>>>>  It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.
>>>
>>> A lot of smaller shops have had that policy for ages.
>> What's new - and I stress *new* as a result of the change in the
>>law, is shops changing *to* a cash-only policy for smaller
>>transactions (having previously accepted cards, albeit with a surcharge).
>> The NEW thing, is not being able to make a (say) £3 transaction with
>>a card *AT ANY PRICE*, unless you pad the transaction with an
>>unwanted item.
>
>That isn't new in my experience, it was quite common in small shops etc.
>Signs, such as "Credit Cards not accepted under £5" (The amount could
>vary from place to place.) Sometimes all cards were indicated as being
>refused under the limit but this was less common in my experience.

What's new is someone being "forced" to change from "surcharge under
<floor limit>" to "cash only for small transactions".

>I don't recall seeing any indicating a surcharge under some limit, at
>least in shops,

The place I was yesterday clearly did, and I'm sure that before the
change in the law there were places charging a fee of perhaps 50p.

>but then I tend to pay only passing interest- I don't tend to use a
>Card for a small transaction, unless there is a reason (eg left cash at
>home).

There's a growing body of Millenials (and oldies trying to be hip and
trendy) who claim that they never carry cash.

--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

Are you suggesting this is 'worse' than the old system (ie more
expensive for the consumer)? or Illegal?

>> I don't recall seeing any indicating a surcharge under some limit, at
>> least in shops,
>
> The place I was yesterday clearly did, and I'm sure that before the
> change in the law there were places charging a fee of perhaps 50p.
>
>> but then I tend to pay only passing interest- I don't tend to use a
>> Card for a small transaction, unless there is a reason (eg left cash
>> at home).
>
> There's a growing body of Millenials (and oldies trying to be hip and
> trendy) who claim that they never carry cash.
>

If I don't have cash on me, it is due to having left it at home,
forgetting to go the cash machine, or my wife raiding my wallet.

Being 'hip and trendy' doesn't come into it.

I'm off out now. The evening will all be billed later. I don't need to
take a penny. (Transport there and back covered.) But I still have my
wallet, with cash and cards. This is a regular event- not always the
same day etc.

[Roland Perry]

In message <p5i142$9ct$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:24:17 on Thu, 8 Feb 2018,
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>>>>>>> In other words, the welcome removal of surcharges, has not
>>>>>>>caused a  new policy.
>>>>>>  It has - their policy of "cash only under a fiver" is new.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of smaller shops have had that policy for ages.
>>>>  What's new - and I stress *new* as a result of the change in the
>>>>law, is  shops changing *to* a cash-only policy for smaller
>>>>transactions (having  previously accepted cards, albeit with a surcharge).
>>>>  The NEW thing, is not being able to make a (say) £3 transaction
>>>>with a  card *AT ANY PRICE*, unless you pad the transaction with an
>>>>unwanted item.
>>>
>>> That isn't new in my experience, it was quite common in small shops etc.
>>> Signs, such as "Credit Cards not accepted under £5" (The amount
>>>could vary from place to place.) Sometimes all cards were indicated
>>>as being refused under the limit but this was less common in my
>>>experience.
>> What's new is someone being "forced" to change from "surcharge under
>><floor limit>" to "cash only for small transactions".
>
>Are you suggesting this is 'worse' than the old system (ie more
>expensive for the consumer)? or Illegal?

You are still missing the point.

Previously: cashless person could buy £3 beer albeit with a ~50p
surcharge.
Now: cashless person can't buy a £3 drink unless they pad the
order with £2 of very likely unwanted purchase.

We can bat back and forth the reason for being cashless (varying from
"spent it all earlier in the day" to "it's the 21st century and I'm
entitled to pay for everything by card") but for that customer the new
rule puts them at a disadvantage.
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <p5hstp$goa$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:

> > That isn't new in my experience, it was quite common in small shops etc.
> > Signs, such as "Credit Cards not accepted under £5" (The amount could
> > vary from place to place.) Sometimes all cards were indicated as being
> > refused under the limit but this was less common in my experience.
> >
> > I don't recall seeing any indicating a surcharge under some limit, at
> > least in shops, but then I tend to pay only passing interest- I don't
> > tend to use a Card for a small transaction, unless there is a reason (eg
> > left cash at home).
> >
> > I don't even recall a surcharge in shops for years- online etc yes- but
> > not in 'face to face' transactions.
> >
> > I'm not defending surcharges or these limits on small transactions, I'm
> > simply relating my experience which differs from yours.
> >
> > I always try to avoid surcharges (I can't recall paying any for years)
> > so I would be aware of being charged them.
>

> Indeed it is not new by any means.
>
> However, I must admit that I have never come across a small business
> adding a credit card surcharge for an over the counter sale before the
> law changed, but I have seen plenty that had a min purchase before they
> would accept a credit card. In my experience credit card charges were an
> on-line phenomenon.
>
There's a small shop near my office that did so for any card
transactions under £5.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <E9OfCP51...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry

<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> There's a growing body of Millenials (and oldies trying to be hip and
> trendy) who claim that they never carry cash.

I've gone the other way and am using cash more and more frequently.

[AnthonyL]

No idea if the pub had a recent change of policy but a dozen of us
booked a table for lunch but paying individually. I usually ask for a
tab and sort out the cost at the end but was told I couldn't because
it was a shared table. Then I ordered a pint but was told I couldn't
pay on credit card because it wasn't over £5 or £10 at which point I
bluntly said "that's why I wanted a tab". Finally the server relented
and gave me an unused table number for the tab. So sorted in the end
and as I included a friend's order on mine it boosted the figure up
increasing my paltry 0.5% cashback.

A local card shop had a £3 minimum spend (credit card) prior to the
change, not been there since and the local pub (not the above one) has
long had a £5 minimum spend before accepting credit cards.


--
AnthonyL

[miche...@gmail.com]

21/07/2018 The charge of £2.50 is still applied by DVLA for payment of car tax by credit card.

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 4:58:16 PM UTC, the Omrud wrote:
> Hurray. My car tax is due on 1st February. I went onto the web site to
> pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit card.
> So I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!
>
> /quote
> There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or
> personal credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all
> other types of cards.
> /unquote
>
> --
> David

[trgu...@gmail.com]

1st May 2019, I've just been charged for payment with a Visa Debit Card.

Tim.

[the Omrud]

On 01/05/2019 10:41, trgu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:52:27 PM UTC+1, miche...@gmail.com wrote:

>> 21/07/2018 The charge of £2.50 is still applied by DVLA for payment of car tax by credit card.

>>
>> On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 4:58:16 PM UTC, the Omrud wrote:
>>> Hurray. My car tax is due on 1st February. I went onto the web site to

>>> pay on Monday but it wanted to charge me £2.50 for use of credit card.

>>> So I left it until today and lo, the charge has been removed!
>>>
>>> /quote
>>> There is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or

>>> personal credit card. An additional fee of £2.50 is applicable to all

>>> other types of cards.
>>> /unquote
>

> 1st May 2019, I've just been charged for payment with a Visa Debit Card.

Is it a personal card? Apparently there is still a fee for paying with
a corporate debit or credit card.

--
David

[trgu...@gmail.com]

Hi,

It's a personal DIRECT DEBIT (Visa) and the V11 vehicle tax reminder clearly states "there is no fee for paying with any debit card, pre-paid card or personal credit card."

Tim.