AMEX not accepted or surcharge

[SOPOOR]

No. While the fee is on a fixed % it is on a transaction by transaction basis with minimum service charge. Or, depending on the merchant, the fee could be on a sliding % scale according to the individual transaction value.

Its been a few yeaes since ive had a merchant faculty. But mine were all prrcentage based

 

[N860CR]

Who do you report excessive credit card surcharges too?

You would be better just telling your mother about it.

A complaint to the ACCC produces a template email that specifically says "we don't investigate complaints" and "we can't say what a reasonable surcharge is".

TIA

 

[perthjay85]

You would be better just telling your mother about it.

A complaint to the ACCC produces a template email that specifically says "we don't investigate complaints" and "we can't say what a reasonable surcharge is".

TIA

ACCC have now been given more power to go after companies doing this.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing-surcharging/payment-surcharges

So there is a good chance after September 1st everyone will be held accountable as it becomes ILLEGAL to charge more than you are being charged for processing credit card payments.

 

[albyd]

Just picked up some dinner at Sushi on Stanley in Sydney. Must have been the last merchant to start taking card payments always been cash. $30 min card transaction with 1.5% automatically added by NAB terminal even for eftpos.
Suffice it to say I paid cash. Apparently tap payments don't attract the surcharge but I didn't believe them. A win for the black economy & their intention all along me thinks.

 

[N860CR]

ACCC have now been given more power to go after companies doing this.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing-surcharging/payment-surcharges

So there is a good chance after September 1st everyone will be held accountable as it becomes ILLEGAL to charge more than you are being charged for processing credit card payments.

We'll see I guess. Given REX still charges in the region of 4.5% for an Amex (and the ACCC has done nothing about it), I don't have much hope

 

[Dr Ralph]

So there is a good chance after September 1st everyone will be held accountable as it becomes ILLEGAL to charge more than you are being charged for processing credit card payments.

I highly doubt this.

 

[perthjay85]

I highly doubt this.

They make a pretty good argument. People need to stop complaining about the ACCC as the law has changed to give them more power to do something about surcharges.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pr...nt-surcharges#what-powers-does-the-accc-have-

What powers does the ACCC have?

If you are a large business, you will need to comply with the ban now. The ban commenced for large businesses on 1 September 2016. Any payment surcharges you charge to your customers must be in line with your applicable costs of acceptance. If you are not a large business, you will be subject to the ban from 1 September 2017.

The ACCC has been given new powers to enforce the ban. We can issue surcharge information notices to businesses, and banks, requiring them to provide evidence of the actual costs incurred by a business for accepting a payment method.

That information can be used to determine whether or not a surcharge imposed by a business was ‘excessive’ i.e. greater than the cost charged to it for accepting payment by that method.

What are the penalties if my business breaches the new law?

If we believe that a business has charged a payment surcharge which is excessive, we can issue an infringement notice to the business:

600 penalty units ($108,000) for a listed corporation
60 penalty units ($10,800) for a body corporate
12 penalty units ($2,160) for a person other than a body corporate.
We can also take court action against a business, in which we can seek pecuniary penalties:

6,471 penalty units ($1,164,780) for a body corporate
1,295 penalty units ($233,100) for a person other than a body corporate.
We can also seek redress on behalf of a group of consumers who have been charged an excessive surcharge, as well as seek injunctions and various non-punitive orders (including community service and probations orders).

In addition to ACCC enforcement action, an individual who suffers loss or damage due to a breach of the ban can bring an action seeking damages.

 

[Dr Ralph]

They make a pretty good argument. People need to stop complaining about the ACCC as the law has changed to give them more power to do something about surcharges.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pr...nt-surcharges#what-powers-does-the-accc-have-

Not sure how familar you are with the ACL. But the ACCC has always had sufficient power to prosecute but frequently chooses not to.

 

[WeeWillyWonka]

Not sure how familar you are with the ACL. But the ACCC has always had sufficient power to prosecute but frequently chooses not to.

Agreed. Having the power to act and acting on that power are often poles apart.

 

[perthjay85]

Not sure how familar you are with the ACL. But the ACCC has always had sufficient power to prosecute but frequently chooses not to.

Not sure how familar you are with the previous rules but before it wasn't illegal to charge more than you were being charged as a company. It was only when it was excessive, there was nothing to define excessive.

Before : you were allowed to charge extra. Excessive surcharges were frowned upon but an excessive surcharge wasn't specified.
Now : illegal to charge extra

 

[Dr Ralph]

Not sure how familar you are with the previous rules but before it wasn't illegal to charge more than you were being charged as a company. It was only when it was excessive, there was nothing to define excessive.

Only as familiar as any registered legal practitioner who knows specifically and directly how the ACCC operates and who has advised the ACCC on a number of matters.

Suggest you have a look at section 18 of the ACL, which deals with misleading and deceptive conduct. This section specifically relates to a merchants failure to disclose any surcharge until final payment. You may have missed a number of members commenting on this. You may not also be aware that the ACCC has consistently chosen not to prosecute breaches of this section.

In short the ACCC has always had considerable power to prosecute but has frequently consciously chosen not to do so. I have indicated that I do not believe it will change its approach despite any new powers it may now have.

I invite you to update us on the number of prosecutions that the ACCC has successfully undertaken against small merchants charging excessive fees in 12 months from now. My estimate is that the figure you will report upon will be in single digits.

 

[perthjay85]

Only as familiar as any registered legal practitioner who knows specifically and directly how the ACCC operates and who has advised the ACCC on a number of matters.

Suggest you have a look at section 18 of the ACL, which deals with misleading and deceptive conduct. This section specifically relates to a merchants failure to disclose any surcharge until final payment. You may have missed a number of members commenting on this. You may not also be aware that the ACCC has consistently chosen not to prosecute breaches of this section.

In short the ACCC has always had considerable power to prosecute but has frequently consciously chosen not to do so. I have indicated that I do not believe it will change its approach despite any new powers it may now have.

I invite you to update us on the number of prosecutions that the ACCC has successfully undertaken against small merchants charging excessive fees in 12 months from now. My estimate is that the figure you will report upon will be in single digits.

Then I am sure you are more knowledgeable about this than me, all I can go on is what I read and what is stated on their websites, They seem to be making a big deal about how they have new and more powers. There is also a much more defined land in the sand, no longer using terms such as excessive surcharges.

How many members have actually complained to the ACCC about hiding the surcharges? I know I have but it was only last week. I have read a lot of members on here having problems with it but how many have actually lodged a complaint with ACCC or AMEX for that matter?

Don't get me wrong I am not an ACCC fanboy, far from it. I have had a few run ins with them both asking for help which I got zero, and arguments about products we sold.
I just like to think that maybe things are changing.

As for prosecutions in the next 12 months do you mean to say you would be disappointed if there were more companies prosecuted than in the past?
It doesn't matter if its 10, how many has it been up until these new laws? I am going to guess probably zero but I have no idea.

 

[cove]

Our Amex rate is 1.5% and our Visa / MasterCard moves down to 1.0% tomorrow at our office. We have made certain that our staff know these changes.

 

[d00dz]

I paid a large chain hotel 1.1% for using VISA, they wanted 3.5% for AMEX. >.<
Can I complain after 1st Sep?

 

[N860CR]

I paid a large chain hotel 1.1% for using VISA, they wanted 3.5% for AMEX. >.<
Can I complain after 1st Sep?

For a large company, the law has been in place for a year.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Recently stayed at the IC Sydney and was charged approx $19 AMEX surcharge when checking out.

They do list AMEX 3% fee on their booking details but like the airlines surely there must be a maximum amount they can charge not a flat percentage?

This is my first AMEX card and it was my first AMEX transaction - welcome to AMEX!

 

[2tall4Y]

Very important to note that in the case of AMEX, the ban on excessive surcharging only applies to bank-issued cards, and not those directly issued by AMEX itself - see:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pr...urcharges#included-and-excluded-payment-types

Recently stayed at the IC Sydney and was charged approx $19 AMEX surcharge when checking out.

They do list AMEX 3% fee on their booking details but like the airlines surely there must be a maximum amount they can charge not a flat percentage?

This is my first AMEX card and it was my first AMEX transaction - welcome to AMEX!

For a large company, the law has been in place for a year.

 

[N860CR]

Very important to note that in the case of AMEX, the ban on excessive surcharging only applies to bank-issued cards, and not those directly issued by AMEX itself - see:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pr...urcharges#included-and-excluded-payment-types

Most merchants wouldn't know the difference.

Also worth nothing that hotels and taxi providers are exempt, as they come under state jurisdiction

 

[WeeWillyWonka]

Most merchants wouldn't know the difference.

Also worth nothing that hotels and taxi providers are exempt, as they come under state jurisdiction

Yeah, nice to see Taxis keep their privilege of a 5% fee for using a card.

 

[albyd]

It used to be 10% ... small mercies.
Outside of government protection, how can that be justified? Anyone can get a Square reader at 1.9% now. Mobile payments aren't unique to taxis anymore.