Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A well established Lordship Lane business (I won't name them) keeps trying to charge me credit card fees to use my card, which was outlawed in January - I've told them a few times and each time the fee is waived but the same thing is tried next time I'm in.

Anyone else come across this in local shops - interested if this is widespread or a one off at this place.

yes - those are the rules (MSE link).


It was for over ?100, so not contactless-able (if that's a word).


People can be alerted without me naming the business (maybe this will help), alertness applies across any transaction not just at this establishment.

Quick email to Trading Standards?



Al&Em Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A well established Lordship Lane business (I won't

> name them) keeps trying to charge me credit card

> fees to use my card, which was outlawed in January

> - I've told them a few times and each time the fee

> is waived but the same thing is tried next time

> I'm in.

> Anyone else come across this in local shops -

> interested if this is widespread or a one off at

> this place.

I wasn't aware of that change so thanks for highlighting it. In the last few months I've been charged a fee twice by a local hairdresser and I had to use a debit card at the (also local) dentist as they charge a fee for using credit cards.
Whilst it is now illegal to charge differentially for use of a credit card, I do feel slightly sorry for small traders who have to pay quite high fees (compared with major companies and chains competing with them) to their credit card charge agency. I try, wherever possible, to use a debit card (charges are lower) for these transactions. But where they do try to charge, that is clearly now illegal. And where I need the protection (for high value purchases) of buying by credit card I will also use that.
East Dulwich Dental Care on Forest Hill Road always used to charge ?1 card fee regardless of the amount. It always pissed me off no end and I was just waiting for the law to come into effect so I could smugly refuse to pay it, only they'd already stopped charging it by the time I went in. Doh!

Sally Eva Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you mean this?

> https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/cards/2017/

> 07/credit-debit-card-fees-to-be-banned

>

> I should just shop elsewhere. Although it is

> annoying.

>

> Are you trying to use a credit card for tiny sums?

> Just tap instead?


Yep, vote with your feet.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...