Line Rental Saver - Renewal problem
Paying the LRS by direct debit has never been an option and to be honest we have no reason to implement it when we have other means of these being done. The options are to pay for it online as it was originally intended to be done, or to call.
The measures are there for you to make the payment and although inconvenient to yourself, security procedures by your bank aren't something we control.
I understand this isn't the response you were hoping for but there's nothing further I can advise.
@shutter your reasoning is correct , it looks like PN are so intransigent they wont consider a change ,, Especially as what has happened with changing Billing 
@ScottStorey wrote:
The cost of implementing and developing the changes far outweighs the cost of a handful of customers calling once a year.
And of course, you can verify that statement of " a handful of customers" ?
I am sure that the LRS is taken up by many more than "a handful" otherwise it would not be cost effective to PlusNet.
even if it were only 10 per day, ringing up those calls amount to about 15 minutes in length.... EACH call.
therefore you can approximate 150 minutes (or 2.5 hours)) of Phone lines and staff, tied up...... PER DAY...
. equating to 17.5 hours..... per week
or to put it into context... 2.1875 working days per week... ( COST THAT IN WAGES ? ? ? ) for your "handful of customers " 
on something that can be dealt with by a Direct Debit system freeing up those Phone Lines and staff...
Surely that is much more efficient and cost effective ?
As mentioned..... the Direct Debit system is already in place for the monthly phone bill payments..
Adding another "script" or whatever to cover the annual payment should not cost as much as 2 days work per 70 customers....
And , from a customer service point, is much less inconvenient to the customer, adding another * to the "Award winning customer service" already bleated about so often.
At present ... the system auto generates an email reminding customers of the impending ending of the current contract. Changing the wording to accommodate the Direct Debit request/order should not be a major cost/problem.... as once it is done for one, it is done for all recipients.
As for your other statement.....
They aren't going to implement a direct debit system for a minority of customers who don't like verified by visa.
You are, again, fudging the issue.... ..... the Direct Debit system would not be "for a minority of customers"
it would be available for ALL customers. Whether they liked the verified by visa option or not..
Hi Shutter, I hope you don't mind my jumping in on this thread, but as you know accessibility is something I'm super keen on and I'm involved in a number of projects around the business to try to improve our offerings.
Firstly, I absolutely understand why being told to call isn't helpful, you could, however, choose to use the Next Generation Text Relay service at no extra cost to yourself.
Secondly, you can pay online at plus.net/rentalsaver. I understand you don't like the 3d secure aspect of the payment but we have a responsibility to ensure that payments taken are as secure as can be, not being able to remember your password (that can be reset) doesn't trump security, although I personally have experience being annoyed at forgetting that password 
You've asked for us to allow payment by Direct Debit and I can understand why that might be attractive to you, but unfortunately, we don't have the facility to do this and the truth of the matter is that we're unlikely to design another system to do allow this as this will come at a cost that's:
a) financial - and so unlikely for a product that makes us less money than simply paying monthly, when perfectly good alternatives already exist.
b) resources, the development time making this, could be spent doing something else. I repeat there are already multiple options for taking payment for LRS
@shutter wrote:
Thanks for your input...
No problem Shutter, I pride myself on being as open and honest as I can be, I wouldn't just tell you that I've passed the feedback on (and I have). I'd always try to give you my thoughts for what the likely outcome will be, they're only that though, my thoughts.
Do you honestly believe that taking card numbers, and other sensitive banking information, like expiry date and the security code number off the back of the card, OVER THE PHONE....
We're fully PCI compliant and process plenty of card payments both online and over the phone.
. is "as secure as can be" compared to a payment by Direct Debit ?
Seriously, which would you prefer ? ( if you had the choice ? )
With your sort code and your account number, a person with the intent can still make payments from your account. I'd always prefer to give my card.
unfortunately, we don't have the facility to do this and the truth of the matter is that we're unlikely to design another system to do allow this as this will come at a cost that's:
a) financial - and so unlikely for a product that makes us less money than simply paying monthly, when perfectly good alternatives already exist.
I fail to see how this suggestion can be "written off" so glibly, as a financial loss ...
Simply because we already have workable solutions, and the Venn Diagram of people that want line rental saver, don't want to pay online via a secure card payment method and don't want to pay over the phone with their card would leave very few people in the middle. Sure some might prefer to pay via DD but most will use the other options.
"resources"... A smoke screen ghost term. often used to suggest to the unwashed, that many people, possibly in their hundreds ( numerically, not age related).. will be required to write a script or two, to implement the changes.
Cost of those resources is a "one-off".... probably less than the £7,280.00 figure quoted above, and once in place will recoup its cost year on year.
Resources doesn't always have mean money, there is also the opportunity cost of moving forward with this option, over another. The development that goes into improving a service that already works perfectly fine for the vast majority of users could go into fixing something that needs it, or into the creation of a brand new thing.
Yes, I know about the multiple options... but that does not mean there is no room for improvement. just because they are there now...... Does it ? ? ?
Another reason why it's unlikely to get further development work on the product is that there is internal debate currently about if LRS is even a product we want to continue to be offering. We have a trial scheduled for the latter part of next month where new customers will not be offered the option of LRS and we will asses the impact this has on new sign-ups and make a decision based on this data as to whether or not we offer this to new customers in the future.
This doesn't impact any of you that currently have LRS, there are no current plans to stop customers with LRS renewing at a later date.
