On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:50:14AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Adam Spiers
wrote:
It's not clear to me whether you're
asking if we would be OK with the
limit being removed entirely, or OK with it being set to something
higher than would ever be needed.
It's not currently possible with GoCardless to have an unlimited
pre-authorization, all I can do is set a really big limit that is
not visible to the customer. Since the customer can't see it though,
I think it is really splitting hairs as to what the limit is;
customer may as well consider it unlimited.
I disagree - just because we (the customers) can't see it, it doesn't
mean it's not there. I'd personally prefer to know what it is, even
if GoCardless hides it in the UI. OK, maybe I'm a control freak ;-)
After all, nothing is truly* unlimited, right? :)
Sadly true of my funds, yes :)
I'm not
keen on the idea of the limit being removed entirely
or even lifted as high as something like £5k, because if something did
go wrong[0] then it could cause me a temporary cashflow problem until
the refund was issued.
When considering potential cashflow issues, I think it becomes clear
that even a large limit is significantly more acceptable than *no*
limit. And if there is a limit, it should be visible to us, the end
customers.
Do you not have any other Direct Debit instructions set up then? Not
for your utilities, council tax, Internet, home/car insurance etc.?
As they all generally have no limit on them.
Yes, I already observed that in the part of my previous mail which you
trimmed from your reply ;-) Here it is again:
> I appreciate I may be asking for something with
more sophisticated
> safeguards than what standard Direct Debits offer, and if that's not
> possible then oh well, it's not a deal-breaker. After all it's far
> more likely that $RANDOM_ENERGY_PROVIDER accidentally charges me £15k
> for a month. But that's not a good reason to avoid aiming higher ;-)
Or if they did let you set limits, would you?
I would if it was easy to do so, yes. I trust most of those providers
much less than Bitfolk ;-)
See, ideally, in the part where you authorize the
Direct Debit I'd
like it to be as simple as:
[Allow us to take payment by DD]
I could just about see it getting a complicated as:
Allow us to [X] always take full payment
[ ] only take $cost per $period (if you upgrade
later on then we'll need to cancel this and
re-authorize)
by DD
Why not just:
Allow us to always take full payment, or $limit, whichever is
lower. ($limit should be high enough so that if you upgrade
later, we won't need to cancel this and re-authorize.)
?
But to have something like:
Allow us to take:
- full payment
- $cost + 500%
- $cost + 100%
- $cost + 50%
- $cost
$per period by DD
seems like it is getting a bit complicated from a user interface
point of view, and means that it will need spelling out why exactly
we might want to take more, still doesn't prevent needing to cancel
and re-auth if they upgrade a lot, and just feels like generally
forcing people to think about things they probably never wanted to
think about.
I agree that's too complicated. But I also don't understand what
advantage anything like that would bring.
I mean, who stops to think, "I wish I could make
it so my council
could only ever take a maximum of double my monthly council tax
bill, just in case they screw up and take lots by accident."? You
just never expect that to happen. You expect them to only take what
you owe.
Well, that really depends on how high are your personal expectations
of your local council ;-) For example, my council have never messed
up my monthly council tax D/D in ~10 years. But I also know that
cuts are eroding the quality of their service, so it wouldn't surprise
me if they do screw up at some point.
Shouldn't BitFolk customers expect BitFolk to only
ever take what it
is owed, not implement checkboxes that promise not to screw up? :)
I'm not suggesting checkboxes which promise not to screw up; such a
promise would be highly misleading, because we're all human and we all
screw up. And that's precisely why safeguards such as a cap on the
transaction size are a good idea.
The most ideal
solution would be for GoCardless to get off their
arses and implement their customers' feature requests rather than
close them and suggest slightly lame workarounds, but I guess that's
not an option :-/
They may be regretting ever entertaining the feature request when
limits are not common on other Direct Debits, and perhaps are
wishing they never added limits to begin with.
Yeah, maybe. But like I said, if I was GoCardless, I'd probably want
to aim higher than the status quo.
I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, though. Sorry :)