About airlines and others charging for debit card use.

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ensure only the Police can bring criminal charges

Far too many private and public bodies can bring criminal charges, from railway companies to local councils, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. This leads to prosecutions for trivial matters and encourages a free-for-all in creating petty offences and the misuse of powers.

Judgement over prosecution should be left 100% to the police once they've evaluated a complaint, and perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded with people who've overfilled their bins or been prosecuted because it was an easy nick.

Why is this idea important?

Far too many private and public bodies can bring criminal charges, from railway companies to local councils, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. This leads to prosecutions for trivial matters and encourages a free-for-all in creating petty offences and the misuse of powers.

Judgement over prosecution should be left 100% to the police once they've evaluated a complaint, and perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded with people who've overfilled their bins or been prosecuted because it was an easy nick.

Stop Council Stealth Taxes

Councils should not have the right to raise revenue by charging for services that are already included in their remit.

This includes the levying of arbitrary fines for infringement of policies, made by the Council but which have little or no standing in in any other law.

Specifically this is in respect of garbage-related 'offences' such as using the wrong bin or overloading bins.

Why is this idea important?

Councils should not have the right to raise revenue by charging for services that are already included in their remit.

This includes the levying of arbitrary fines for infringement of policies, made by the Council but which have little or no standing in in any other law.

Specifically this is in respect of garbage-related 'offences' such as using the wrong bin or overloading bins.

Make public officials financially liable

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

bank charges missed direct debit charges

bank charges are a detriment to customers,they can leave a customer of a bank in a massive spiral of debts they cannot get out of,the agreement and contract we sign is a disgrace to the banking industry,its a package of services banks say,to me and millions of people its a licence to steal money ,plain and simple,there contracts are so tightly sewn up,customers have no recourse for complaint about the way they are put into force,they tie you in so you cannot get out,they are ruining peoples financial affairs as we speak,visit bank.moonfruit.com to see exactly what they have done to millions of people,my bank is a disgrace,thats why i closed my accounts,they are so far removed from reality it is unbelievable that anyone has any confidence left.

Why is this idea important?

bank charges are a detriment to customers,they can leave a customer of a bank in a massive spiral of debts they cannot get out of,the agreement and contract we sign is a disgrace to the banking industry,its a package of services banks say,to me and millions of people its a licence to steal money ,plain and simple,there contracts are so tightly sewn up,customers have no recourse for complaint about the way they are put into force,they tie you in so you cannot get out,they are ruining peoples financial affairs as we speak,visit bank.moonfruit.com to see exactly what they have done to millions of people,my bank is a disgrace,thats why i closed my accounts,they are so far removed from reality it is unbelievable that anyone has any confidence left.

Remove information from police records if no charges are made

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.