Minister should ban payment surcharges

LAST year’s Consumer Protection Act was badly needed because it helped to outlaw unfair and misleading commercial practices, like omitting delivery charges from prices in adverts.

Recently I booked a cheap one-way flight with a major Irish airline. When I reached the payment page on its website, it became clear the surcharge to pay by credit card would be 80% of the cost of my flight.

I hold a Visa debit card — the airline in question does not accept the more common Laser card — but I still had to pay a 30% surcharge.

I subscribe to a pay-television service and pay every bill on time by bank transfer. I was dismayed to read an insert with a recent bill saying that unless I chose to sign an agreement permitting the company to take any amount of money it wished out of my account at any time (better known as a direct debit mandate), it would charge me an additional €2 per month.

I am left with little choice other than to pay more to ensure that I retain control over my personal finances.

I find that utility companies in particular are far faster to resolve service issues when they know they will not be paid until they do so.

There can’t be the slightest difference in cost to the company between a direct debit payment and a bank transfer.

These two lamentable situations arise because when Enterprise, Trade and Employment Minister Micheál Martin signed the order to enable the act last year, he omitted sections 48 and 49 which would outlaw the practice of surcharges based on the method of payment chosen by a consumer. While he held a consultation about when to introduce those sections last September, all has been quiet since then.

I urge the minister to introduce these sections as soon as possible and prescribe that the price of the same item or service doesn’t change whichever payment method a person uses.

Thomas Ralph

Prince of Wales Terrace

Ballsbridge

Dublin 4