The National Lottery has been exempted from the new measure.Read the full story ›
A £14 billion damages claim brought against Mastercard on behalf of millions of UK consumers has been revived by a 'landmark' court ruling.Read the full story ›
The end of "rip-off" extra payments forced on customers using debit or credit cards has been praised - but will consumers pay more?Read the full story ›
Mastercard rolls out a 'selfie pay' feature which lets customers verify purchases with a quick photo instead of a password.Read the full story ›
Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said credit card providers are "letting people down" by failing to give them constructive advice after their application is rejected.
"We want lenders to give a useful reason for a refusal and practical tips so borrowers can take steps to improve their chances of being accepted in the future," he continued.
Mr Lloyd said people should be able to shop around for credit cards more easily without being penalised.
He urged all companies to use quotation searches so that consumers can see whether they might be accepted without a full application "footprint" being recorded on their credit file.
Which? said the most common gripes from consumers about credit card firms were poor communication and not enough evidence given about why their application was rejected.
A study of more than 2,000 people who had a credit card application turned down in the last two years found:
- 48% were dissatisfied with the level of information given over refusal reason
- 79% said they were not given specific reasons for their rejection
- 30% claimed they were not given any reason at all
- 49% were told to "check their credit file"
Credit card companies are "adding insult to injury" by keeping people in the dark over why their applications have been rejected, consumer campaigners have claimed.
Which? said firms are leaving consumers confused by failing to give enough constructive advice about why they have been turned down.
Nearly half of people surveyed by the consumer group who had an application turned down in the last two years were dissatisfied with the level of information given over the reasons for refusal.
The most common gripes were to do with poor communication and not enough evidence about why the application was rejected.
The new rules to ban "rip-off" charges for people who use debit or credit cards to buy goods and services have been welcomed by consumer campaigners, who say businesses must not try to pass on costs in other ways.
Richard Lloyd, Which? executive director, said: "Over 50,000 people supported our campaign to end rip-off surcharges so we're pleased the Government is implementing this ban.
"For it to be effective there must be a tough enforcement regime and companies must play fair and not pass costs on to customers in other ways.
"We will be monitoring the ban closely and want people to tell us about surcharges they think are excessive."
The measures are being implemented through the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.
Micro businesses and business start-ups will be exempt from the regulations until June 2014, allowing them more time to prepare.
Research conducted by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in 2010 found that 87% of consumers objected to extra charges for credit cards and 91% objected to extra charges for debit cards.
Consumer Minister Jo Swinson said the practice of "rip-off" charges for consumers had been happening "for far too long".
"They are fed up of thinking they will be paying a certain price for goods only to find out towards the end of the process that the final price is much higher."
Ms Swinson said the ban will stop retailers from cashing in by charging add-on fees that do not reflect the cost of processing the payment.
Consumers will be less likely to get nasty surprises as they will have a clearer and more transparent breakdown of what they are paying for.
A ban on "rip-off" charges for people who use debit or credit cards to buy goods and services such as flights and cinema tickets began today.
Under the new rules, traders should make sure that any payment surcharges reflect the actual processing cost involved and are not excessive.
The crackdown aims to make payments more transparent for consumers so they are not hit with a "nasty surprise" at the end of the payment process.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) estimates that consumers spent around #300 million on payment surcharges in 2010 in the airline sector alone.
Surcharges are often imposed in other sectors, including rail, event tickets, cinemas, car dealerships and hotels.