Paypal surcharge

[Frank9755]

My hunch is that it probably would not stand if it were to be tested in court - which I cannot imagine it ever will be. 

However, I have to say that I believe it is bad law and that it leads to payment services providers extracting higher profits at the expense of consumers than should be the case. 

If the cost of different methods of payment were made transparent to consumers - as is generally the case for, say, delivery, they could take those costs into account in deciding what method to use.  A law which requires this information to be concealed does not seem in the interests of the consumer, who ends up paying the costs of the payment systems.  The high margins made on payment services supports this. 

[Ben T]

My hunch is that it probably would not stand if it were to be tested in court - which I cannot imagine it ever will be. 

However, I have to say that I believe it is bad law and that it leads to payment services providers extracting higher profits at the expense of consumers than should be the case. 

If the cost of different methods of payment were made transparent to consumers - as is generally the case for, say, delivery, they could take those costs into account in deciding what method to use.  A law which requires this information to be concealed does not seem in the interests of the consumer, who ends up paying the costs of the payment systems.  The high margins made on payment services supports this.

I think it would rest on whether there was the option of paying the lower fee by paypal but sending the organiser 2 SAEs in the post.

Any documented cases of this actually happening would probably help.

As would - the fact of the surcharge being for the envelopes and stamps, rather than simply the convenience of paypal, being made clearer.

[Paul H]

I thought we were paying the individual organiser, if so the Consumer Protection Regulations won't apply unless they're considered a Trader.  This is quite clearly business regulation and it's a shame anyone even thinks of Audax in those terms.

[grams]

I thought we were paying the individual organiser, if so the Consumer Protection Regulations won't apply unless they're considered a Trader.  This is quite clearly business regulation and it's a shame anyone even thinks of Audax in those terms.

That's a possible defence, but in the unlikely event it ended up in court you might find "I take money from a hundred strangers and provide them with a service, but I promise you it's not a business" doesn't really stack up.

I don’t post out paper routesheets so there are no extra costs to cover.

I don't think I've ever received a routesheet by post from a UK organiser, although I usually enter quite late. I did get a nice one from France though.

[willpom gwraudax]

You are correct, that is why shipping will be listed as another option (click and collect free/postage £xx). What AUK lists one option with multiple payment methods. The payment method is the only difference according to the AUK website.

Fee: £13.50 (£14.25 when paying with PayPal)

It is not AUK setting the additional amount it is the organiser. AUK wording on the site stating it is a surcharge is incorrect. The organiser has the option which they should use to include what the additional cost is for. Postal vs Paypal are two different services. The AUK site as you may well know is antiquated and offers no options for organisers to manage their payment systems other than postal on or off, paypal on or off & a 'surcharge' +ve or -ve

Are you arguing also that organisers who offer paypal discounts are breaking the law?

[grams]

Any trader offering different prices for different payment methods is breaking the law.

The argument that organisers are offering different prices for different services is probably valid, but the AUK website doesn't present it as that. I'm surprised there hasn't been some attempt to tweak the wording.

[willpom gwraudax]

I'm surprised there hasn't been some attempt to tweak the wording.

I expect there has. The organisers have to work with the AUK system given to them or arrange their own. I know a few do, I shall be too once I figure out this internet thingamajig.

[citoyen]

In the event planner, there's a box for notes to online entrants and another for notes to postal entrants. The org should use this box to spell out what entrant can expect to get in return for their surcharge.

However, I don't know if/when these notes are communicated to the entrant. I have a note for postal entries: "SAEs not required - postage included in entry fee." But whenever I have had postal entries, they always send SAEs. So I don't know if they're just ignoring the message or not receiving it. Or maybe they think the default instructions on the entry form override this message (is it possible to change the instructions on the entry form?)

[willpom gwraudax]

I think it is just ignored, along with the "I'll be in touch with all the information you need about X weeks prior to the event" type of message.

[citoyen]

I think it is just ignored, along with the "I'll be in touch with all the information you need about X weeks prior to the event" type of message.

I entered my event by way of a test and the message wasn’t communicated to me at any point.

There really ought to be scope for including custom instructions on the entry form - the system can already produce bespoke entry forms with individuals’ details already filled in so it should be possible.

[Manotea]

I think its simply unethical to charge extra for online entries, a tadge, 'RyanAir'

The price of entry is the price of entry. If you need to charge more to cover Paypal costs, charge more.

This dissembling about Paypal and postal being different services is simply a nonsense and does nobody any favours.

 

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think it is just ignored, along with the "I'll be in touch with all the information you need about X weeks prior to the event" type of message.

I entered my event by way of a test and the message wasn’t communicated to me at any point.

Make sure you notify the organiser if you DNS.

[willpom gwraudax]

I entered my event by way of a test and the message wasn’t communicated to me at any point.

The message you enter on the PayPal set up is to justify to your regional secretary. The message to the entrants should be conveyed in the 'Organiser's Notes to Online entrants' and will be displayed.

http://www.aukweb.net/events/enter/19-707/

[Frank9755]

My hunch is that it probably would not stand if it were to be tested in court - which I cannot imagine it ever will be. 

However, I have to say that I believe it is bad law and that it leads to payment services providers extracting higher profits at the expense of consumers than should be the case. 

If the cost of different methods of payment were made transparent to consumers - as is generally the case for, say, delivery, they could take those costs into account in deciding what method to use.  A law which requires this information to be concealed does not seem in the interests of the consumer, who ends up paying the costs of the payment systems.  The high margins made on payment services supports this.

I think it would rest on whether there was the option of paying the lower fee by paypal but sending the organiser 2 SAEs in the post.

I doubt it.  The service is organisation of a ride with AUK/ACP validation and, in either case, it is identical. 
The service is not buggering about with SAEs - that is a detail of how postal delivery of the service differs from electronic delivery.   

[FifeingEejit]

I doubt it.  The service is organisation of a ride with AUK/ACP validation and, in either case, it is identical. 
The service is not buggering about with SAEs - that is a detail of how postal delivery of the service differs from electronic delivery.   

If one method of entry requires you to provide SAEs and another method of entry provides the Stamps and Envelopes then the service is different (you get a delivery service included in the order through one entry method and not the other you have to provide it yourself).
Otherwise it would also be illegal to charge different prices for 24hr/48hr/5day delivery or for that matter to charge different delivery rates on the basis of distance or zone.

If both methods of entry provide the envelopes and stamps... exactly the same service, then you'd be hard pushed to argue that the difference wasn't anything other than the payment method, which is banned.

[Frank9755]

The delivery analogy doesn't hold. It is not illegal to sell the same product or service at different prices, as long as the distinction is not driven by payment method.

[FifeingEejit]

The delivery analogy doesn't hold. It is not illegal to sell the same product or service at different prices, as long as the distinction is not driven by payment method.

There is a distinction in service level for the delivery analogy.

It is illegal to sell the same product and service at a different price from what is advertised to a customer under advertising law.
That is what sank the computer shop I worked in.

Customer was told on the phone by the workshop manager that something was £18
When he arrives the shelf edge stated £20 as did the POS terminal.
The customer challenged this through Trading Standards and the Sheriff agreed that as the product had been advertised to him at £18, therefore £18 is what he should have been charged.

The mistake the workshop manager made was that he read out the price from the internet sales price list; which was legitimately different because it's a different service provided for the same product.

However there is nothing to stop you being advertised a different price from me simply because you are you and I am I.

Advertising two prices to a customer at the same time for the exact same service is going to be problematic; and with payment surcharges banned the only way available to differentiate other terms of the service provided.
Providing the free envelope and stamp for return of brevet over requiring an SAE to be provided is a distinction in the service level provided.

Licensing law goes further, requiring all prices charged under on license to be consistent and published at all points of sale; though that is devolved so may differ in England.

[Frank9755]

Correct, but different point!