UK consumers lose £1.6bn a year in unwanted subscriptions

[Alien8]

£50/month for SEVEN YEARS - wow, yet another example of I can't be arsed to check my statements.

Am I the only one who checks each item in their financial statements every month?

 

[Oldhippy]

I don't subscribe to anything, CC exclusively although not sure that counts as it costs nothing.

 

[Pblakeney]

£50/month for SEVEN YEARS - wow, yet another example of I can't be arsed to check my statements.

Am I the only one who checks each item in their financial statements every month?

I'm continuing my trend from when I was self employed and doing my accounts on a weekly basis.
Only takes 5-10 minutes these days though.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Just shows how financially illiterate some are. Even if you were sneakily subscribed, you’d think people would check their statements and regular payments at least once a month.

 

[Drago]

I check my bank accounts scrupulous every few days.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I still get paper credit card statements for 2 reasons

a) I sometimes need something like that for physical ID
b) so I can give them a quick check over and check nothing has "not appeared"


I have noticed something "appearing" once of twice - it was normally something had ordered and not noticed the subscription stuff
but they have always cancelled it and refunded the last payment when I contacted them

missing it for months on end is basically irresponsible

 

[mistyoptic]

£50/month for SEVEN YEARS - wow, yet another example of I can't be arsed to check my statements.

Am I the only one who checks each item in their financial statements every month?

Hell, no! I always check.

I find it extraordinary that folk don’t check. I guess they’re too busy accusing the gumment of trying to track them to think about being parted from their lolly by all and sundry.

 

[fossyant]

Always careful with these subs - you do need to review if you are 'using' them. Eg magazine subs were the thing, we cancelled ours.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Checked monthly here.

 

[Drago]

1,6 billion? That's Accy's monthly clothing budget.

 

[PaulSB]

Failing to check financial statements of any kind is the individual's fault. That's no excuse for questionable behaviour by companies but it's still one's own responsibility to check one's own affairs.

While I couldn't state it accurately I know approximately the balance on all our bank and CC accounts. I'll recognise the balance immediately I see it, anything which doesn't look right is checked. Our balances show in a single app.

The exception is our C/A which constantly changes so I scan this individually every few days. Five minutes at most.

 

[markemark]

It's big business and part of the model. Gyms make money on unused subscriptions, not people who attend. All those gift cards are often left unspent and retailers make a fortune selling cards knowing that 10-20% will never be used. And of course those Red-letter style vouchers which are bought as presents are very often not redeemed.

 

[Electric_Andy]

It is the individuals responsibility to check, yes. But there also needs to be tighter regulation on how these companies hook you in to buying subscriptions. Often it is added on as a default so it becomes opt-out, not opt-in. I wouldn't expect a shopkeeper to short-change someone and then state "well it's your fault for not checking your change"

 

[PaulSB]

It is the individuals responsibility to check, yes. But there also needs to be tighter regulation on how these companies hook you in to buying subscriptions. Often it is added on as a default so it becomes opt-out, not opt-in. I wouldn't expect a shopkeeper to short-change someone and then state "well it's your fault for not checking your change"

I would check my change as my responsibility. There could be a deliberate short-change or genuine error, either way one can't know without checking. It's the same point as checking a bank statement.

If it is deliberate by not checking one allows the shopkeeper to get away with it

 

[Electric_Andy]

one allows the shopkeeper to get away with it

That's my point, if the shopkeeper is an employee and therefore an ambassador of the business, they shouldn't be trying to "get away" with anything. For the sake of this point I am ruling out dishonesty from individuals. But this is exactly what some businesses are doing, trying to get away with taking money where the contract isn't explicitly explained. So in other words, the onus should be on the seller/provider to make the terms clear so no "checking" should be required by the customer.