tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post5712501784394711479..comments2024-03-29T15:23:18.491+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Unethical?RevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-89930616669889576372015-01-12T12:06:52.585+00:002015-01-12T12:06:52.585+00:00Indeed, if the failure was not his fault we would ...Indeed, if the failure was not his fault we would have had every sympathy, and anyway we credited him anyway.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-30077117038491236482015-01-12T11:23:24.165+00:002015-01-12T11:23:24.165+00:00I am of the opinion that where a payment is expect...I am of the opinion that where a payment is expected to happen automatically (e.g. a DD), and it doesn't for some reason (which may not be the payer's fault - e.g. the bank or the payee may have made a mistake), the payer should be informed and given a reasonable length of time to correct the error before receiving any penalty charges. I don't think 2 working days is really a "reasonable length of time" here - 5 working days (possibly with a bit of extra discretionary leeway during periods of national holiday) seems fairer to me.<br /><br />This opinion isn't based on any law, it's based on some common sense ideas of both sides staying on good terms. Admittedly, if a payer is persistently taking the piss and pays late every time then tightening this up is probably reasonable.<br /><br />In my (ongoing) problems with Npower, they failed to collect a direct debit for around 6 months and didn't inform me (and I didn't notice it hadn't left my account). My fuel charged gradually mounted up without me noticing (they didn't send a statement). I then received a "final demand" telling me I had to pay several hundred pounds within 9 days. Now, I'm not sure how legal this is, but it seems like a more extreme version of your example, and it certainly doesn't qualify as a way of maintaining good relations with the customer. (In my case it was the payee's fault for not collecting the DD, but even if it had not been their fault I would still have expected them to notify me that something had gone wrong well in advance of sending final demands and imposing penalty charges).Steve Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09798286430189689578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-82986718992955321722015-01-10T19:26:11.123+00:002015-01-10T19:26:11.123+00:00Paying a bill or invoice late is bad manners if no...Paying a bill or invoice late is bad manners if nothing else. I tend to pay on receipt of an invoice so I don't forget later on. If my Home ::1 wasn't strictly DD only A&A would get a Faster Payment as soon as the invoice hits my inbox. Matt Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02500604194317946890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-27641206692951659082015-01-09T17:10:50.298+00:002015-01-09T17:10:50.298+00:00The point is that we only say we will try the DD *...The point is that we only say we will try the DD *once* within the terms. We currently offer up to 25th.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-55760836363162242982015-01-09T17:06:54.765+00:002015-01-09T17:06:54.765+00:00Weird one.
If the DD failed, then if you don'...Weird one. <br /><br />If the DD failed, then if you don't take the money again as you say you will, has he failed to pay? You left it late. <br /><br />However it might be better to offer different dates for the DD - up to the 20th perhaps, using the excuse that Christmas messes things up otherwise. <br /><br />After all, if someone said the 30th, this could also happen, & I presume you want the money before the end of the supply period anyway? Nigelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16570349252948836345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-11227463917127161812015-01-09T13:37:05.114+00:002015-01-09T13:37:05.114+00:00Interesting feedback, thanks. I do try to post her...Interesting feedback, thanks. I do try to post here to get feedback, and some times I get told I am wrong, and should re-think things!<br /><br />To try an answer some of those points (and I have updated the post slightly as well to clarify).<br /><br />A single failed payment or ten of them, if not paid within agreed terms, then that is "late". I am not sure why a "single" payment failing makes that less "bad" somehow. As I have now added at the end of the post, in practice, we'd have credited the charges for such an unusual case anyway, and similarly if it was due to a bank error rather than just failing to have £23.90 in the bank.<br /><br />The failure notice is a tricky one - they were already over the due date and so late, but had this extra grace period to the date service was provided, and the 5th was beyond that. They could have paid within that period. It may be that we update the system to only do that second DD in that time frame if it can be within the terms that would avoid a penalty, and otherwise make the notice suggest a fast payment. I'll look in to that as an improvement.<br /><br />The publication difference is that I am not naming them. They planned to name us and wrongly assert we were acting unlawfully and incite people to cause us hassle by trying to reclaim penalties we have (lawfully) charged.<br /><br />If he does not leave as a customer, and I don't sack him as a customer, I am going to suggest we don't lock the DD date to the 25th, and even formally make the terms 30 days. That would allow more time to pay and would allow time for two collection attempts within terms.<br /><br />As for paying twice, you would not ultimately do so, even if you did at that instance. For a start, if it was paid on 29th we could have cancelled the DD, and I think even if on 30th. Also, if paid twice we'd refund the extra. Either way, it would not have been a £40 penalty.<br /><br />All of that said, I suspect his attitude is down to being broke - I mean, what kind of business bounces a £23.90 DD?<br /><br />I'll look at making improvements in our systems too.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-7553178979068525952015-01-09T13:26:19.935+00:002015-01-09T13:26:19.935+00:00I'm struggling to understand the exact chronol...I'm struggling to understand the exact chronology of events here, but I think the stroppy customer has a point.<br /><br />Their "unethical" behaviour:<br />- I don't think you can sensibly come to that conclusion based on a single failed Direct Debit.<br />- As far as I can tell, they did not immediately send payment when notified of the failure because they also notified you would be attempting a second Direct Debit collection on the 5th?<br />- I am not sure why you think their attempt to ensure you were acting within the relevant legislation is /unethical/? Albeit, perhaps incompetent as they were apparently wrong.<br />- Again, I'm not sure publicising anything is "unethical": you seem quite happy to publicise others' errors here! <br />- Finally, I again don't think you're looking for the word "unethical" for their suggestion that you should have collected a second Direct Debit.<br /><br />However, you confirmed on IRC the payment was collected by a second Direct Debit. So what actually happened? I certainly wouldn't pay immediately upon receiving notification of a failed direct debit if I had been told a subsequent attempt would be made -- I'd end up paying twice!DThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573629759647894295noreply@blogger.com