Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They will have to eventually, and they can certainly do so now. For those suggesting the OP is requiring small businesses to make a loss - he/she isn't. The retailers in this case are pushing cost and effort onto their customers rather than adapt themselves. They will be the ones to suffer in the end.


It isn't remotely unusual to not carry cash these days, and there can be very good reasons for doing so. I never do it any more since being mugged.

Agreed with the above! Think a few of the comments on this thread are pretty unreasonable, people need to understand the modern ways of paying and accept that cash will eventually go the way of the cheque book and will become a roll your eyes moment when someone produces it as a form of payment until a point it is no longer accepted... Contactless payment in particular is quicker and easier for all concerned.

As someone who is wealthy enough to pay a few extra pence on everyday items, I say shops should certainly increase their prices to take account of their card transaction overheads - poor people who aren't issued cards by their banks must just realise that is a reasonable burden on them for being poor - if all they can manage is cash then they should certainly be happy to pay my transaction costs - or perhaps just choose to eat or wash less. Simples.


Amended to add:- please switch irony circuits on now!

As someone who couldn't even get a bank account for several months when I first moved to the UK and then was denied a debit card for over a year because I had no credit record, and someone who has been both homeless and extremely poor at points in my life, I will strongly assert that it is much much easier to manage spending when you can do so electronically rather than having to take cash out. I've had points in my life when I couldn't take cash out because I didn't have enough in my account for the minimum withdrawal.


Having to pay a few pence more, as opposed to having to buy things you can't afford to just to get what you need, would have been a small price to pay for me.

I agree. I don't mind being asked to pay 25-50p, but I resent the minimum spend. My two closest shops are a fab independent Turkish supermarket and a crappy co-op. The Turkish supermarket has a ?10 minimum spend which I think is unreasonably high. The cash point is outside the co-op. If I'm popping out for milk or bin bags or whatever, there's no point walking down the hill to get cash just to walk back up again.


Wish they'd see the light and just charge the fee!

B&G Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree. I don't mind being asked to pay 25-50p,

> but I resent the minimum spend. My two closest

> shops are a fab independent Turkish supermarket

> and a crappy co-op. The Turkish supermarket has

> a ?10 minimum spend which I think is unreasonably

> high. The cash point is outside the co-op. If

> I'm popping out for milk or bin bags or whatever,

> there's no point walking down the hill to get cash

> just to walk back up again.

>

> Wish they'd see the light and just charge the fee!


As noted previously, since January 13th this year it is illegal to charge customers for credit/debit card fees; that's why shops have been forced into minimum spend policies (which remain legal) to cover charges.

I do voluntary work for a couple of community organisations, one which is a registered charity. neither of them accept cards only cash. The charity will accept cheques in certain conditions, other wise it is cash. It will also accept payments directly to it's bank account.

Thanks Rendel. Banning this wasn't the purpose of the regulation though, which is why it's frustrating (that is, I'm not sure it was considered a "rip off" charge, unlike the ?2-?5) routinely charged by airlines and theatres etc.


Cash only businesses (nail bars and hair shops etc) always look pretty suspect to me. I wouldn't use them.

How are the shop's fees structured? Do they have to pay a fixed (or minimum) amount per transaction, or is it always a percentage?


Different cards have different deals with different merchants - but I think it is common to have a %fee with a minimum charge which, for small transactions, means virtually a fixed fee. There may also be a maximum charge as well in some deals. The more business you generate the better the deal you can get. Charges for use of debit cards (where there is no issuer risk) are generally lower than charges for credit cards - where there is an issuer risk of card-holder default. But I think there is always some transaction charge.

east-of-the-Rye Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some shops, i believe one in Brockley, and the

> Beer Shop in Nunhead have gone cash-less. I guess

> this works if you completely cut out the cost of

> banking the cash, and accept the cost of taking

> card payments:

> from the Beer Shop website:

> WE'VE GONE CASHLESS

> After trialling a cashless period throughout

> February we have decided to go cashless. Thanks to

> everyone who gave their feedback.

>

> On average only 21% of our take is cash and if

> these takings were on card it would save us 60% in

> costs to accept, count and bank the cash. (Over

> ?1300 a year!) Card payments are also more secure,

> avoid human error and make transactions quicker.

>

> So from now on we'll only be accepting card and

> contactless payments. As always there is and never

> will be a minimum spend or any charges.



Think it?s Brown?s in Brockley.

B&G Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree. I don't mind being asked to pay 25-50p,

> but I resent the minimum spend. My two closest

> shops are a fab independent Turkish supermarket

> and a crappy co-op. The Turkish supermarket has

> a ?10 minimum spend which I think is unreasonably

> high. The cash point is outside the co-op. If

> I'm popping out for milk or bin bags or whatever,

> there's no point walking down the hill to get cash

> just to walk back up again.

>

> Wish they'd see the light and just charge the fee!



Completely agree, that shop is excellent but the ?10 minimum is weird. Though in my case it just makes me spend more in there if I don't have cash, which I guess is their aim!

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> east-of-the-Rye Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Some shops, i believe one in Brockley, and the

> > Beer Shop in Nunhead have gone cash-less. I

> guess

> > this works if you completely cut out the cost

> of

> > banking the cash, and accept the cost of taking

> > card payments:

> > from the Beer Shop website:

> > WE'VE GONE CASHLESS

> > After trialling a cashless period throughout

> > February we have decided to go cashless. Thanks

> to

> > everyone who gave their feedback.

> >

> > On average only 21% of our take is cash and if

> > these takings were on card it would save us 60%

> in

> > costs to accept, count and bank the cash. (Over

> > ?1300 a year!) Card payments are also more

> secure,

> > avoid human error and make transactions

> quicker.

> >

> > So from now on we'll only be accepting card and

> > contactless payments. As always there is and

> never

> > will be a minimum spend or any charges.

>

>

> Think it?s Brown?s in Brockley.



It is Brown's. Had an excellent coffee from there today. The hot chocolate is banging too.

There will always be a need for currency that does not run through audit/ bank records.

Lots of people don't have bank accounts.


Shops have the right to impose their own conditions. If you don't like it, you don't have to go.

At least they're being visibly honest with their takings.

I actually have a website and take card payments in person - it's much cheaper to accept a card payment and pay the small charge (1.5-2.25%) than trying to pay cash in the bank.


Less staff fraud, less chance of getting robbed and less chance of getting your books wrong - it makes no sense whatsoever to not want to accept all card payments - unless you are trying to dodge paying taxes

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Different cards have different deals with

> different merchants - but I think it is common to

> have a %fee with a minimum charge which, for small

> transactions, means virtually a fixed fee.


So if a customer is only buying a pint of milk or a bag of crisps, it is possible the fee might completely wipe out the shop's profits, right?


What's the solution? Add a few pence to all items, and accept that small individual purchases are not going to be proiftable? Maybe introduce a "discount" for customers spending over a tenner?


Surely places like upmarket-ish beer shops and cafes have a built-in minimum spend of ?3 or so, so not really a fair comparison.

messageRe: Minimum spend shops :(

Posted by Angelina Today, 02:38PM


At least they're being visibly honest with their takings.



I don't understand what you mean by this. As a consumer I have no idea whether the minimum spend is reflective of the charges they are paying, so can't see how this is "at least" visible or honest.

Fishbiscuits - there is no solution as such. All businesses have bank charges whether they deal in cash or take electronic payments. The cash payment charges would already be built into their margin as part of general overheads.


Merchants who treat charges relating to electronic payments as some special thing are anachronistic at best, and using it as an excuse to get extra revenue at worst. A bit like those dodgy internet retailers who insist on charging "restocking fees" for returns during the cooling off period under consumer rights law.

anonymous_third_part Wrote:


> Less staff fraud, less chance of getting robbed

> and less chance of getting your books wrong - it

> makes no sense whatsoever to not want to accept

> all card payments - unless you are trying to dodge

> paying taxes



I used to use one particular shop round here and noticed that they put transactions through the till if I paid by card, but never if I paid by cash.


Whether fraud or tax evasion or some other reason I have no idea, but I stopped going there.


I almost always pay by card, especially now it's so easy with contactless payments. But I keep a tenner and a fiver in with my Freedom Pass, just in case. I don't blame shops for not wanting to be out of pocket for card payments, but on the other hand I don't want to spend more unnecessarily either.

As retailers we do absorb the costs of bank charges, with some shops they will have a ?5 minimum spend on cards, to stop people from buying a bar of chocolate for 89p with a card!!!!!!

The most common charges we are faced with are the charge per transaction, its 30p per debit and 60p per credit.

There is a misconception that contactless payments carry no charge for the retailers, that is not true.

I always carry change and a ?5 note, for small transactions, I do this out of respect for the independent retailers, who are charged for everything from getting change for the shop float to paying in cheques.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...