Wish I’d never blogged about it now…

If you read my blog last week on a canny bit of gift recycling, you would’ve read the tale of the multi-gifted "Next stop 40" t-shirt.

Originally given to me on my 30th birthday by my friend Justin, I gave it back to him the next year for his birthday. Then it was regifted to me last year aged 39, and on Saturday night I saw him to give it back to him.

However, as I did that, he presented me with a new gift, which you can see below:

Next stop 50

Next stop 50

Luckily though, while I’m from the blue side of Manchester, he’s from the red – so overall I think I can cope!


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Sainsbury’s launches mostly meaningless price promise

Sainsbury's launches mostly meaningless price promise

Sainsbury's launches mostly meaningless price promise


A price promise press release has just dropped into my inbox from Sainsbury’s Personal Finance. It’s on shaky ground with me, as I’m no fan of this type of marketing hype where companies promise to reduce prices in the unlikely event that having signed up, you search elsewhere and find it cheaper (see my Price promises aren’t worth the paper they’re written on blog).

Here’s an edited down version of the release…

SAINSBURY’S OFFERS PERSONAL LOAN PRICE PROMISE GUARANTEE

Sainsbury’s Bank is offering a Price Promise Guarantee whereby if any customer successfully applies for its standard personal loan but secures a better rate elsewhere with another provider, the supermarket bank will beat it.

Sainsbury’s Bank already offers one of the most attractive personal loan rates in the market at 6.1% APR representative for loans of between £7,500 and £15,000. The Price Promise Guarantee* applies to all Standard loans from £1,000 to £25,000."

My first title for this blog was ‘Sainsbury’s launches meaningless price promise’, as to find another loan cheaper afterwards, you’d need to apply elsewhere. But each application you make for a loan hits your credit score and can thus be a big negative.

Yet having thought it through, I’ve made it ‘mostly meaningless’ as I can see a tiny window of advantage for this promise.

While Sainsbury’s is at some amounts, one of the market’s cheapest (see Cheap Loans for full best buys), like all lenders its APR is "representative rate", meaning only 51% of accepted applicants get the headline rate offered. The rest can be charged more and people are often shocked having applied to a cheap lender to receive double-digit APR offers.

However, it can take up to a week for them to tell you – and that’s the slight window. If Sainsbury’s accepts you, but not at the cheapest rate and another lender gives you a lower deal, this way you could undercut Sainsbury’s by 0.1%. Then again, it’s bad practice to apply to two lenders for one application anyway due to the credit impact – so MoneySavers shouldn’t be doing this.

Plus, Sainsbury’s terms state: "Claims cannot be accepted if the customer has already fully accepted the Sainsbury’s Standard Loan offer by signing and returning the Sainsbury’s Loan agreement."

So if you have applied elsewhere as well as Sainsbury, it’s best not to sign up fully until you get a final response from elsewhere.

As I say…mostly meaningless.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

A canny bit of gift recycling…

A canny bit of gift recycling…

A canny bit of gift recycling…

On 9 May 2002, as I hit 30, the gift one of my best friends, Justin, gave me was a ‘next stop 40′ T-shirt. The following May as he followed suit (he’s just under a year younger), I, of course, gifted it back to him.

Then last May as I hit 39, I found the same T-shirt sent back to me. Well, in the best possible MoneySaving taste, I’ve just packaged it up, put it in a box, added a card in preparation to give it back to him.

In the end, Justin did a clever bit of gift-giving. He bought it, and he’s the one who gets to keep it in perpetuity.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Are you a ‘real person’?

Are you a 'real person'?

Are you a 'real person'?

I’m often told it’s important that I help ‘real people’. I’m sure many reading that will nod their head in agreement. Yet stop for a second, what exactly counts as a real person? 

This is a genuine conundrum, as it’s often a phrase used against me covering a particular subject. The comments on the MSE forum and on Twitter and Facebook include things like the following (this is from memory, so not word-accurate, but the sentiment is right):

"You did that money makeover, but while she may’ve had £16,000 of debt, she was a teacher with a good job, why don’t you help real people?

And in the last few weeks:

"When are you going to stop the stuff about ISA rates or reclaiming PPI and start dealing with the issues real people face?"

And to cap it off:

"Why are you focusing on all those people scrounging on benefits? When are you going to help hard-working, real people?"

So who are the real people out there? I think it’s slightly sad that people don’t think those who aren’t in the same boat as them are deserving of information or help – even in these tough times, we need be tolerant of others.   

I started by asking "are you a real person?" But perhaps a better question would be to ask "who isn’t real?"

Related past blogs / news


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Is it worth using a PPI claims company? – 10 things you need to know

Is it worth using a PPI claims company?

Is it worth using a PPI claims company?

"You don’t need to pay to reclaim" – that’s the message we’ve been pushing this week, in a major joint campaign with Which? Yet many have asked if this means it’s never right to use a claims company. Like most things it’s never completely binary, so I wanted to jot down some thoughts.

The mischief we’ve been trying to solve with the Don’t Pay To Reclaim advert and the PPI summit is that huge numbers are unnecessarily paying to reclaim.  

With an estimated £9 billion being given out by the banks, and claims management companies doing around half of those claims, taking 30% of people’s cash each time, this is a £1billion+ industry. It’s so lucrative, these companies can afford to dominate the airwaves and the messaging, spending £2million a month on advertising.

The 10 things people need to know before using claims companies

This communication strength has led to an information misbalance. Below I’ve listed the main things I think people should know before using a claims company – but many simply aren’t aware of.

  1. You can do it yourself for free (see Reclaim PPI For Free for how).

  2. It’s much easier than it used to be since banks lost last year’s court case – many people now get paid out after just one letter or call.

  3. You have no greater chance of success with a claims company than without. In fact, guidelines state claims companies shouldn’t suggest this.

  4. Many claims firms use similar templates to the ones we offer for free in our guides.

  5. The prices firms charge are very high – often 25%, plus VAT, of what you get back. People should have this explained in practical terms before signing up. So if you’re due £5,000, then that’s £1,500 to the claims company.

  6. Beware using claims companies if you are in arrears. Often banks will use the money to clear or reduce the debts. If this happens, you won’t see the cash, but the claims company will still want its cut. So you’ll have to shell out, out of your own pocket. This is one the worst issues for me.

  7. A few claims companies charge an upfront fee as well as a win fee. Beware if you are going to do this – never pay upfront, stick with no win, no fee.

  8. Beware any company that will charge you on ‘future PPI savings’ – it could cost you large. To explain, imagine you’re two years into a 10-year £10,000 loan. The mis-sold PPI on it is £3,000, but you’ve only paid £600 of it so far.

    If your reclaim is successful, while the bank will give you £600 back, these type of claims companies unscrupulously want their 30% on the whole £3,000 – so they’ll demand £900. Yet you’ve received less than that, so overall it’s a loss.

    This is outrageous, as for future premiums you could’ve simply just cancelled the PPI.

  9. Once you sign up, you’ll need to pay if you do it yourself. This is a growing issue. People start a claim, become unhappy with the company and then find even if they choose to go it alone, it’s going to want the fee anyway.

  10. To make matters worse, getting redress if things go wrong is very tough. Barring going to court, against a company which is likely to have its own legal firepower, you’re likely to be stuck.

If you know all of that, and make a rational choice – using a claims company is fine

If you know all these facts and decide to use a company, then it’s a legit, rational consumer choice. This is most likely to happen in the following circumstances:

  1. You wouldn’t bother doing it without. If you’re busy and know it’ll never happen otherwise, and are happy to pay a hefty 30%+ to get your cash back, then it’s a perfectly legitimate choice to decide to pay to get your mis-sold PPI money back.

  2. You’ve a pre-2005, non-Ombudsman case. For some with older cases of mis-selling that isn’t from banks, the Financial Ombudsman can’t adjudicate. An example would be a car finance deal PPI. In that case, if they don’t play ball then you will need to go to court – in which case a claims company on a no-win no-fee basis is useful.

    The problem is many claims companies just like to cherry-pick the easy cases. So it may be difficult to find one who’ll take this on.

  3. Mental health or illiteracy. For those people who would find the process too difficult to do themselves, a claims company may be a helpful route – though it is frustrating that society’s most vulnerable may need to pay. It may be worth seeing if your local Citizens Advice Bureau can help first.

If they were better regulated, I’d be less against them

The real problem here isn’t that claims companies exist. It’s that many – not all – play fast and loose, and there’s no redress if they do things wrong.

The fact it costs £9-£10 per click to advertise on Google shows just how profitable this lark is. The charges are disproportionate – I’d guess you could run a profitable claims company at a 10% fee.

There are too few barriers to setting up a claims company under Ministry of Justice regulations. While it has some operational standards that should be followed, there’s a very small team there monitoring an industry that’s exploded. It’s simply not resourced to put controls in. 

Worse still is the fact there’s no redress if things go wrong. What would be great is if the Legal Ombudsman were able to take on claims company complaints so there would be a free, independent, route for justice. That, combined with stronger rules of practice, would eliminate some of the issues described above.

With these measures, I think the problems with claims companies would lessen substantially and they would become a much more legitimate choice for many.

Of course there are some better claims companies right now. But finding them is a nightmare, and there is simply no authoritative way to cut the wheat from the chaff.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Scary inmate Lewis…

I’m sure there are some out there (perhaps with today’s PPI summit – a few of the less reputable claims handlers) who’d say I should be put behind bars. Yet it was still a surprise to get back to to MSE Towers and find these two giant images sitting on my desk…

They were sent by Card Town, after we told people about its free Valentine’s card. The Prison Break one is particularly realistic-looking and freaked me out, so I couldn’t help sharing them.

Scary inmate Lewis…

Scary inmate Lewis…

Yearbook Lewis…

Yearbook Lewis…


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

The ‘everyone tell Starbucks your name is Bob’ campaign

The 'everyone tell Starbucks your name is Bob' campaign

The 'everyone tell Starbucks your name is Bob' campaign

Having just had a coffee meeting, I experienced Starbucks’ new corporate policy of asking everyone their name. It didn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy – I actually found it rather intrusive. I don’t want my name shouted across the store. Why does the coffee purchase need personalising? So I’ve a cunning plan….

Of course this isn’t the biggest issue in the world, I don’t plan to take to the streets with a placard – its just a bit of a plastic, faux form of over-familiarity from a corporate. When I worked behind a bar in my youth, if you didn’t know someone’s name, out of respect it was Sir or Madam. 

So please, just give me an anonymous cup of coffee. I’ll wait to pick it up. Sure, if I want to sit down, give me the option of giving you a name (or number) to call out, but don’t enforce it as part of the process.

The whole thing has the sense of a well meaning corporatist sentiment gone wrong. There are many wonderful friendly small coffee shops where they actually do know your name – Starbucks isn’t one – and this is a mechanistic attempt to be friendly. Sure if you go in regularly and get to know the staff, great, but when popping in do we need this.

Some may like it, and if so fab, but it’s the carte blanche nature that’s not for me.

So here’s my suggestion for a bit of fun, taking inspiration from Blackadder (call it a cunning plan) for a great gender-neutral name.

If they ask, let us all say "My name is Bob" (and Twitter users, the hashtag is #TellStarbucksYourNamesBob).
Am I alone on this?


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Dear TV and radio producers: Please remember savers…

TV and radio producers: Please remember savers…

TV and radio producers: Please remember savers…

It’s easy to assume that in the current poor economic times, no-one has savings. Yet many, including those feeling the pinch, are savers, who are suffering cripplingly low interest rates and want information.   

Trying to discuss savers’ issues in mainstream broadcast media can, on occasion, be a tough sell. I’ve been told a few times, "none of our audience have any money".

And I’m not surprised, as when I do these discussions (thanks to my regular programmes for the opportunity) that in the streams of people sending in questions, there’s often someone tweeting or emailing something like "pah – who’s got savings?" or "why aren’t you helping real people?". But I’ve never had a tweet from a saver complaining when I do debt cost-cutting slots.

These tweets make editors think that by covering savings, they’ll appear out of touch. Of course no audience is financially homogenous, so no one subject will ever appeal to all.

While I understand why a general producer who has to balance lots of subjects such as politics, showbiz, news and money would think this – there is a risk of confusing sentiment and the squeeze on incomes with people not having assets.

So it’s worth looking at some stats.

Are people savers or debtors
?

The following are the results of a poll of 10,000+ people we did last October. Of course it’s of MSE users, but on these issues we tend to reflect the average internet users.

Q.  Excluding mortgages and student loans, are you a debtor or saver?

Over £25,000 more debt than savings 8%
£5,000 – £24,999 more debt than savings 20%
Up to £4,999 more debt than savings 19%
Roughly the same of both 5%
Up to £4,999 more savings than debt 12%
£5,000 – £24,999 more savings than debt 19%
Over £25,000 more savings than debt 22%

As this shows, the debt-savings seesaw is roughly balanced – yet look at how many have substantial savings. 

Both debt and savings have their place on TV

It’s worth noting that the number of people in severe debt is roughly balanced by those with over £25,000 in savings. I know the first would be a much easier broadcast sell-in slot, as it’s perceived to be the more common scenario (and of course there’s a greater urgency with helping people with debt problems too).

But I’ve lost track of the numbers of callers during Daybreak cash clinics, for example, who ask: "I’ve £50,000 saved what should I do with it?" Plaudits to Daybreak for listening to their audience and throwing savings slots into the mix recently.

Part of all this is the idea that ‘all real people are struggling’. Yet not everyone is struggling, and even many of those who are still have savings – built up over years of hard work.

So a little plea to producers out there – please don’t be drawn into thinking everyone is in debt and has no cash. Many people are jealously protecting their hard-saved money and being financially prudent – and they want info too.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Revenge is sweet MSE Guy… mwah ha, mwah ha ha ha

I am about to do something cruel, but it is not without cause. In an email on Monday, our Arsenal-supporting news editor MSE Guy sent me this while we were both working on the content of the weekly email…

If you’re looking for good deals, I reckon Mario Balotelli shirts will be cut-price at the Man City store…”

(For those not of a football bent, I support Man City, and Arsenal somehow managed to beat them on Sunday.)

Yet by a coincidence of timing, I have just been sent the following picture of MSE Guy running a half-marathon, and feel it would be remiss of me not to publish…


Guy on a milder day…

PS. I’m not quite that cruel, I did check he wouldn’t be mortified first – he said “love it”.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Can you buy stamps now, then sell them for 30% profit?

Can you buy stamps now, then sell them for 30% profit?

Can you buy stamps now, then sell them for 30% profit?

Stamp prices are going to rocket on 30 April. 1st class letter-sized stamps will rise from 46p to 60p, and 2nd class letter-sized stamps from 36p to 50p. Lots of people have been asking me if they should stock up now in order to sell them for huge profit later. Well… it’s possible, it’s legal, but it may not be that easy.

Here are my 10 key facts everyone needs to know about stocking up and selling stamps:

  1. If they say 1st or 2nd, not a price, they stay valid. As long as stamps indicate the class not the cost, they remain valid after the price hike.

    This has been confirmed to us by Royal Mail, which said "we have no plans to change this" and by regulator Ofcom, which said "any future change must be fair and reasonable" (and saying ’1st class’ isn’t 1st class is very unlikely to be reasonable). So the premise certainly works – more info on this is in my earlier why 1st class stamps stay valid blog post.

  2. Superdrug and Costco are selling them at a discount. Today’s the last day (update: this blog was written on 10 April and this deal has now ended) Superdrug is selling 1st class stamps at 5% off (though you’re only allowed a maximum of 72 stamps in one transaction, and stock is dwindling), although Costco regularly sells them at a discount. See Cheap Stamps for more.

  3. EVERYONE should stock up for personal use. The likelihood of stamp prices ever being cheaper than now, while not impossible, is phenomenally unlikely.

    So buying all you can afford that you’ll need for personal usage is important. Don’t just think of Christmas 2012′s cards, but years beyond that too. Remember to keep them somewhere safe, which you won’t forget, and don’t buy unless you’ll definitely really use them in future.

  4. Stamps are not legal tender, but that’s irrelevant. Since the price hike I’ve been regularly asked if stamps are legal tender. They’re not, but it’s not an issue. Most are asking based on a misunderstanding of what legal tender means.

    It’s actually a technical term that means if you’ve a court-ordered debt against you and you repay in legal tender, the debt repayment cannot be refused. Many wrongly think it means "a shop has to take it" – but no shop needs to take payment if it chooses not to, whether it’s legal tender being used or not.

    As an aside, it’s worth noting that in Scotland, neither English nor Scottish bank notes are legal tender (just some coins), while in England, only Bank of England notes are.

    I suspect what most people mean by the question is "can I use stamps to pay for something?" The simple answer is yes, provided the other party is willing to accept them. The advantage of using stamps for purchasing is they have a ready and quantifiable value, which may make them more acceptable to someone – though of course, the majority of shops won’t accept them.

  5. However, in the unlikely but not unheard of event that someone would accept stamps post-price rise that you bought now, you could be quids in.

  6. If you’re an eBay seller, there could be profit to be had. Those who sell on eBay often charge postage, based on the prevailing rates. Therefore stocking up on stamps now at 46p when you can charge 60p for first class postage is an easy way to net those who sell frequently on eBay a handy profit.

  7. There is no Royal Mail facility to buy back stamps. This is a question that’s been rocketing into my Twitter account. There seems to be an urban myth that the Royal Mail must buy back stamps – it’s not true. I’ve checked – once you buy them, they’re yours and you can’t give them back.

  8. It is legal to resell stamps. When I asked the Royal Mail, it replied: "It is legal to resell unused postage stamps. Retail agents who have a contract with us are not allowed to sell them at above face value.” So those who want to buy stamps now in the hopes of flogging them at a higher price later could make serious cash.

  9. The effective return on selling stamps is 30%. Take this chap who tweeted me, one of the many spending really serious amounts of cash:

    "I’ve just bought £1,750 worth of stamps". If he were to sell them all at the full future price he’d get £2,300 back – a 30% return.

    This is a phenomenal return, to get the same back in a top easy access cash ISA at current 3.5% rates would take eight years.

  10. Don’t assume selling will be easy. Of course you could just put the stamps on eBay. Yet many will be sceptical of someone selling stamps. Even though it’s legal, it has a dodgy feel to it – and why would anyone buy them at full price from you when they can do the same from the Post Office?

    Never mind the fact that one of the reasons for the hikes is people are shifting online – and thus stamp use is decreasing.

    So to do this, you’d need to sell at a decent discount, perhaps 53p per stamp, which cuts the return down. And to make it worthwhile, it’d need to be in bulk. Don’t think too much about selling hugely to the business market, as even after the price hikes the cost of 1st class franking will be only 44p, and 31p for 2nd class.

    I’m not saying it can’t be done, but don’t undertake it too lightly.

  11. Sell stamps as a business and you need to pay tax on the profits.

    If you’ve never done this type of thing before, it’s important to understand the tax implications. While you are allowed to flog your own old stuff without paying income tax on it, those who buy and sell as work to profit – even part-time – can be defined as traders. If that happens, then income tax is due on the profits (the money you make after purchasing and other costs, not the total sales).

    The exact amount this will hit you at depends on what your tax rate is (see the Income Tax Calculator). For example, a student earning under the £8,105 personal allowance (the amount you can earn before paying tax) won’t be impacted, but a higher rate taxpayer will see 40% of profits disappear.

Whether you do it or not is up to you – certainly I would suggest stocking up soon for personal use. Whether you make a business move is another question – let me know below if you’re planning it.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Warning! Axa Sun Life and other over-50s plans (but don’t just cancel if you’ve got one)

Michael Parkinson’s caring voiceover makes these plans seem simple. Yet for many, Axa Sun Life’s over 50s plan is a seriously bad bet. You pay in more than it’ll ever pay out. Last week on BBC1′s Watchdog, I laid out my concerns in a film. I’ve since been swamped with questions, including: "I’ve got it, should I cancel?" So let me run you through this.

Quick links

Warning! Axa Sun Life & other over-50s plans

Warning! Axa Sun Life & other over-50s plans

How over-50s plans work

The sell is simple. Let me break down the key concepts for you:

  • We pay you a fixed lump sum on death.
  • No need for a medical.
  • Perfect for funeral planning.

This all sounds an easy way to protect loved ones when you go, and many have bought into the idea. Over two million of these schemes are now in place. The most important bit, though, is in the small print. Let me blow it up for you:

"Premiums are payable for life and you could pay more in, than is paid out on death."

In other words, sign up for these types of policy and you may pay more IN than it ever pays out. That’s because, with over-50s plans, the amount it pays out is fixed. If you live longer, you keep paying in and in and in and in – and the amount paid out doesn’t increase.

Watch my Watchdog film on this

To get an easy introduction to the problems with these plans, view this Watchdog film. It doesn’t, however, include the follow-on studio interview where I explain the circumstances where these plans do work. This is covered below.

Do the numbers – quickly work out how good or bad these plans are

It’s easy to calculate whether you’re likely to end up with a bad deal. I’ll start with a simple example:

Big Bob is a 65-year-old darts player in pretty decent health. His kids are struggling and he’s alone, so he decides to put a bit of cash aside each month in an over-50s plan, paying £5 a month with Axa. It promises to pay him out a guaranteed £660 when he dies provided he lives at least two years.

To find out if it’s worth it…

  1. Find out how long it’ll be before he pays in more than it’ll pay out

    Divide the payout by the monthly contribution:

    £660 divided by £5 = 132.

    This gives the number of months after which he will have paid in an amount equal to his lump sum.

    132 months divided by 12 = 11 years.

    So, as Bob is currently 65, if he reaches the age of 76, he will have contributed more than the planned payout.

  2. Consider the chances of living that long

    So what are the chances of that happening? Well, to find the averages you can use the ONS mortality stats. Looking at your own health situation and the longevity of other members of your family is a good guide to try and work out an estimate (though of course, there is never an accurate answer).

  3. The mortality stats show the average life expectancy for a man who has reached age 65 is 83.

Therefore the AVERAGE 65-year-old man will pay in more than they ever get out.

Worse still, if Bob just put his £5 a month in a top savings account with interest (after tax) he’d likely have built up the £660 after around 9 and a half years, so he’d be just 74 by the time he’d saved what Axa pays out.

I’ve put a few more Axa examples below – which show varying contributions and situations, showing how much it changes. So always do your own bespoke calculation.

Woman aged 60
Contribution Promised lump sum Age at which contributions equal lump sum Avg life expectancy of woman aged 60 (1) Savings equivalent (2)
£5 £1,065 78 84 £1,400
£50 £13,065 81 84 £18,300
£74 £19,465 81 84 £27,400

Man age 65
Contribution Promised lump sum Age at which contributions equal lump sum Avg life expectancy of man aged 66 Savings equivalent (2)
£5 £660 76 83 £780
£50 £8,110 79 83 £9,967
£74 £12,085 79 83 £14,861
(1) ONS mortality stats are for women aged 65 to live until aged 85, so I’ve estimated it at 84 for women aged 60 (2) Amount that would’ve built up in an untaxed top interest savings account by the age when contributions equal the lump sum had the money been put in there.

Key points to be aware of

But it doesn’t stop there, there are more points you need to be aware of…

  • Once you have paid the money in, like an insurance policy, you can’t get it back
  • Miss even one payment and you lose everything, no matter how long you have been paying in.
  • You don’t generally get a payout if you die within a year of starting the plan (some policies, including Axa, also don’t pay out the full amount if you die within two years).
  • Payments must normally continue way beyond the value of your lump sum, though many plans let you stop at 90. However, three companies – including, yet again, the market leader with nearly 800,000 policies sold – keep you going beyond that.

So our 65-year-old darts player Bob, who’d paid off the equivalent of his lump sum by the age of 76, would need to keep paying and paying – even if he hit 180.

In combination, this can put some who live a long time in a difficult position. Watchdog viewer Mary Vickers, aged 84, had two Axa Sun Life policies with a combined total plan payout of £2,740. She had already paid in £3,700, and needs to keep on contributing £22 a month until she dies.

She would’ve had far more had the cash just gone in a savings account.

Inflation makes things even worse

As the lump sum is fixed at the outset, while it may sound a lot when you start, it’s worth is constantly being eroded by inflation.

Due to this, over the years, Axa has written to customers encouraging them to sign up for MORE plans.

Another Watchdog viewer, June Tapping, was distressed to discover her parents took out their first plan in 1987, but as its value dwindled, they decided to top it up with a second. Axa Sun Life encouraged them to do the same thing, leaving them with 10 plans, having paid in over £10,500 even though all the lump sums add up to less than £7,000.

There are some winners

Having been all doom and gloom so far, it’s worth noting that not every single over-50s plan is a nightmare for all who get them.

  • Others providers can have much better payout ratios

    Some of the smaller companies can have much better payouts compared with what you put in. A few even link the lump sum to inflation.

    If you want one of these, it’s worth doing the sums and comparing. The key sell is peace of mind that whenever you go there will be a lump sum – so if that’s at a decent price it isn’t too bad a decision. Also, the more you’re putting in, the better value products tend to be.

  • As there are no medicals, you can play the averages

    My analysis is based on a statistically average person. But of course, at the age of 60 or 65 some people do have health issues, whether from being heavy smokers, seriously obese or already-diagnosed conditions and illnesses.

    For someone in that position, these can be a very good gamble, as unlike other types of policy there is no medical. Though it’s important to note that if you were to die during the first one or two years (which varies by policy) you would not get a payout.

    Take the example of a 65-year-old man who’s been told he’s only likely to live for another five years. On that basis, even an Axa plan for £74 a month would pay out £12,085 – if you did die after five years you’d only have paid in £4,400 to get it, a very efficient investment.

    So for someone who’s very unlikely to make the average life expectancy, these can be a seriously good gamble. Though of course, do compare different plans to see which gives you the greatest return.

If I’ve got a plan already, should I cancel?

Having spent most of this blog heavily knocking these policies, the obvious question for the two million people who’ve got them already, if they’re in good health, is: "should I cancel?" Snce my film, many have tweeted me exactly such a question.

While it’s easy to say most people shouldn’t get them in the first place, that doesn’t mean those who have them should cancel. Do that, and everything you’ve already put in would be lost.

Sadly, as you are trapped in these policies, to work out whether to carry on, you effectively must discount everything paid so far. That money is lost, one way or the other. The big question to ask yourself is…

Ignoring everything paid in so far – will I end up paying more in from now on, than it will pay out?

Take Beatrice. She’s 60 and has just got a £5-a-month Axa plan, paying out £1,065 when she dies. Certainly, on average, this isn’t a good deal as she has a life expectancy of 84. If she saved £5 a month every year till then she’d have £1,440 even before interest.

Now, let’s fast forward 15 years. Beatrice is 75, and has just read this guide. She’s panicked by finding out she didn’t make the best decision over this policy – and is considering ditching it.

The most important thing for her to understand, difficult as it is, is that the £900 already paid in is irrelevant. Even if she cancels now, that money is lost. The real question must dispassionately be whether it’s worth carrying on putting money in, or putting the money into savings instead.

Assuming she’s in good health, her life expectancy at this point is now likely to be roughly 86 or 87 (estimated). So is it worth paying £5 a month for the rest of her life to get the £1,065 payout for her family?

If she lived until 86, she would be paying in a further £660 by the time she died, yet as the payout is £1,065 that’s worth doing. In fact, unless she lives beyond the age of 92, she’ll still pay less in than she’d get back (ignoring inflation).

So, even though overall the policy isn’t worth it at the outset, on average Beatrice would be making a mistake to cancel at this point. Of course, working this out, and estimating lifespans, is difficult. So if forced to simplify it I’d say…

The more years you’ve been paying in for, the less likely it is to be worth cancelling.

Alternatives to over-50s plans

I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from saving for their funeral planning (or providing money for loved ones when they go), yet if over-50s plans aren’t right for you, there are alternatives.

For many in good health, the simple alternative is putting money away in top savings, or even better, tax-free cash ISA savings. Yet this isn’t without its risks either. If you were too die sooner than expected, not enough may have been put in to pay for a funeral or other plans you have for the money.

Standard life insurance policies usually sold to families become very expensive the older you are, especially when you’re over 60. They’ll also take your medical history into account, so they can become prohibitive (though non-smokers in their 50s may still find them a good deal).

There are also simple funeral plans which guarantee to cover the cost of a funeral. This isn’t something we’ve covered on MSE yet, though this is a useful Which? piece on the subject.


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Should you panic buy fuel? A true prisoner’s dilemma

Should you panic buy fuel? A true prisoner's dilemma

Should you panic buy fuel? A true prisoner's dilemma

Many forecourts across the UK have queues, and shortages are starting. I’ve already scootered past one "sold out of diesel" sign. While the potential truckers’ strike was the catalyst, that’s no longer the problem. The issue is the resultant panic. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma. The concern is if you don’t act and everyone else does, it’s worse for you.

The prisoner’s dilemma

This is a classic part of game theory. (Read more about it on Wikipedia – I’ve taken a couple of extracts from there.)

The set up…

"Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer both a similar deal – if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (co-operates/assists), the betrayer goes free and the co-operator receives the full one-year sentence."

"If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each ‘rats out’ the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?"

  Prisoner B stays silent Prisoner B confesses
Prisoner A stays silent Each serves 1 month Prisoner A: 1 year
Prisoner B: Goes free
Prisoner A confesses Prisoner A: Goes free
Prisoner B: 1 year
Each serves 3 months

As can be seen, the correct solution is dependent on what someone else does independently, and I think we’re seeing exactly that now in the petrol panic-buy situation.

The petrol buyer’s dilemma

Here’s my roughly reworked version (I’ve only looked at the outcome for individuals):

  You don’t panic buy You panic buy
Most don’t panic buy Fuel shortages unlikely You’re definitely sorted
Most others panic buy You’ve higher risk of no fuel when you run out You’re likely to get some fuel due to earlier buying

Of course, as we’re talking about the interaction of one individual with a mass, it’s not quite the same as the classic dilemma. But the psychology is similar.

Had no-one started panic buying, there wouldn’t be a problem (one reason why politicians, who need to focus on the greater good, should always do what they can to try and forestall such actions).

Yet if others are panic buying, taking the moral high ground and refusing to join in increases the risk, as there may be shortages.

So should you be tanking up even if not needed?

We’re in a mid-way point at the moment depending on where you live, and if everyone calmed down things should return to normal pretty quickly, which would be best for all. So, on a moral basis, we’re all better off to steer clear of the pumps unless needed. 

At a bare minimum, everyone should be using the right driving and buying techniques to conserve fuel (see Cheap Petrol guide for lots of tips).

Yet those who work in critical jobs (doctors, nurses etc) or those who may have long journeys to take family to hospital planned can’t take those risks, and probably should fill up just in case. 

As this tweet I received (tweet me via @martinslewis) last night shows…

My husband needed 2 fill his ambulance last night in Nottingham & couldn’t find any diesel. #healthatrisk #fuel# stopthepanic" – Leanne Pearson

Ultimately, here the answer is everyone needs to address the balance between the moral and practical decision for themselves. Personally, I’ve filled up my scooter with the £7-worth it takes as it was nearly empty, but left my Smart car with half a tank of fuel. 

What do you think?


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Why stamps that say ’1st’ stay valid in perpetuity (so hoard ‘em)

Stamp prices

Stamp prices

Stamp prices will be hiked on 30 April, so bulk buy "1sts" and "2nds" now and they stay valid so you can beat this. I’ve been yelling this to anyone who’ll listen, but some have questioned whether this will always be the case. So I thought I’d explain.

What’s happening?

From 30 April, 1st class letter-sized stamps will cost 60p (they’re currently 46p) while 2nd class rise to 50p (they’re currently 36p).
Yet provided the stamp says 1st or 2nd, as shown below, rather than an individual price, they’re valid after any rise.

1st class stamp

1st class stamp

2nd class stamp

2nd class stamp

This is a technique we’ve been suggesting for years and it works. So don’t just stock up for Christmas 2012, do it for 2013, 2014, and so on.

To add to that, right now Superdrug and Costco are selling them at reduced prices (see Cheap Stamps).

Will 1st class always be valid?

Almost certainly. Before yelling it, we had of course checked with Royal Mail. It says…

Stamps without a specified monetary value are described as Non Value Indicator (NVI) and are typically first and second class stamps. These do not have an expiry date, therefore can be used regardless of the length of time you’ve had them.

"Stamps with a monetary value also do not have an expiry date and can be combined to make up the value of postage required. This has always been the case with stamps and we have no plans to make any changes to this."

Then we checked with Ofcom. It says:

Any changes to terms and conditions for Royal Mail’s customers have to have to be fair and reasonable, which is a regulatory obligation we have imposed as part of this week’s decision on securing the UK postal service."

This pretty plainly means that Royal Mail aren’t planning to pull the rug from underneath people’s feet. If they did, they would then have to prove it is fair and reasonable, or the regulator could kibosh it.

As there is no sell-by date on stamps, my view, and that of people in the know I’ve spoken to, is that it’s an almost watertight argument that it wouldn’t be fair and reasonable if they did start moving the goalposts (at least not without many years of notice).

The great stamp hoard has started

Lots of people have already got in touch to say they’re doing it…

I bought 100 1st class stamps yesterday as I am getting married in 2014. Plan to get another 100 next week."

Bought two books of first and class stamps today! Lady at Morrisons said there had been a rush this week but didn’t know why!"

People are taking your advice – don’t think we’ve ever sold so many stamps in one day. They are a bargain with the 5% off." (From a Superdrug staff member).

Of course, while stocking up is good, do be sure you’ve got the cash, that you’ll use them, and put them somewhere safe (that you’ll remember).


Comment via Facebook login

This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Stamp Duty – can you fix Britain’s worst tax?

Stamp Duty – can you fix Britain’s worst tax?

Stamp Duty – can you fix Britain’s worst tax?

I hate stamp duty. It’s not that I object to a tax on purchasing property. It’s this distortive tax that has absurd cliff hangers meaning an extra penny on a house’s price can cost thousands. So on the back of last week’s Budget, which fiddled with the rates but did nowt to change the problem, I’ve a challenge for you – can you fix it?

Stamp Duty is plain stupid

As explained in the stamp duty calculator, the buyer pays the stamp duty (tax) based on the price of the property being bought.

Property price £125,000 or less – no stamp duty
Property price £125,000.01 to £250,000 and it’s 1% stamp duty
Property price £250,000.01 to £500,000 and it’s 3% stamp duty
Property price £500,000.01 to £1,000,000 and it’s 4% stamp duty
Property price £1,000,000.01 – £2,000,000 and it’s 5% stamp duty
Property price £2,000,000.01+ and it’s 7% stamp duty (or 15% if bought as a company)

What’s stupid is that the stamp duty tax rate is set at an absolute rather than marginal level. In other words, rather than you paying 1% stamp duty on everything above £125,000, you pay 1% on the whole amount. If you’re still confused, the following examples show the nonsense.

  • Property price £125,000. Stamp duty = £0
    Yet buy a property costing a penny more and you pay an extra £1,250
  • Property price £250,000. Stamp duty = £2,500
    Yet buy a property costing a penny more and you pay an extra £5,000

  • Property price £500,000. Stamp duty = £15,000
    Yet buy a property costing a penny more and you pay an extra £5,000

  • Property price £1,000,000. Stamp duty = £40,000
    Yet buy a property costing a penny more and you pay an extra £10,000

  • Property price £2,000,000. Stamp duty = £100,000
    Yet buy a property costing a penny more and you pay an extra £40,000
  • As well as the obvious unfairness this causes, due to this absurdity you get weird peaks and troughs in prices advertised around these levels, which distort the housing market unnecessarily.

    Time to stop the absurdity

    Before the last election, in the PM candidates’ debate on the site, we asked the five party leaders their views on this issue. Most avoided the question. The one exception was Nick Clegg,

    It certainly is unfair, and we have a long-term ambition to change it. But changing stamp duty would come with a huge price-tag unless you increased the rates, and – with the black hole threatening to engulf public finances already – this isn’t something we can do right now”

    See MSE leaders debate for full answers.

    So I think it’s time we tried to work out how to do it, without it costing people too much more.

    Setting out a challenge

    Quite simply, the tax needs to be reworked into a marginal tax system. In other words, like income tax when you go above a threshold. You should start paying more, but only on the amount above that threshold.

    So my challenge is – can anyone do this in a way taking the following three points as the brief?

    1. It’s revenue-neutral (ie, it raises the same amount of tax as now, no more nor less).

    2. It’s fair and roughly proportionate. While by definition some will need to pay more and some less – overall the burden should be of a similar level to the way it works now.

    3. It’s simple. There shouldn’t be too many bands to make it too confusing (a maximum of, say, 10).

    I thought about offering a prize for anyone who can do this, but then realised I would never have time to go through every single entry. So instead, I’d love to read your thoughts.

    Yet if any university economics or public policy type student wants to give this a proper go, including research on where house prices are now, and to do a paper on the back of it proposing a solution and has the backing of a senior academic to do so – let me know (beforehand) with a one paragraph pitch and I am happy to offer £1,000 as a prize to do so (we’ll work out the exact arrangements if someone pitches)

    To enter, email stampduty@moneysavingexpert.com

    Everyone else, do feel free to note your thoughts about this tax, and possible solutions below. Would making it a marginal tax create more problems than it solves?


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    Tesco scores second own goal in the ‘£50 iPad’ fiasco

    Tesco scores second own goal in the '£50 iPad' fiasco

    Tesco scores second own goal in the '£50 iPad' fiasco

    First there was the price error – Tesco Direct offering the new iPad online for £49.99. Cue lots of people asking "I’ve bought it, does it have to honour it?", only to be disappointed that the answer was no. 

    While other companies like M&S, and famously Zappos, have previously honoured such breaches regardless of the law, Tesco isn’t budging. If you were being charitable you can see why not. Web errors do happen (we’ve had our own), though I must admit I was surprised it didn’t mitigate the issue by saying at least "here’s 500 Clubcard points to say sorry for the confusion" or something of the ilk.

    Yet to compound that own goal – this morning one of the MSE Towers team, who’d tried to buy one of the iPads for himself and got the rejection email, was sent the following:

     

    Come on Tesco, now you’re just rubbing people’s noses in it. This looks like an example of really shoddy management. Surely after being publicly berated for the glitch by the media, did nobody sit down to run through cancelling the auto-feedback email on products that weren’t delivered?


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    A new danger for anyone who shares a flat / house

    A new danger for anyone who shares a flat / house

    A new danger for anyone who shares a flat / house

    Update 22 March: Hoorah! Since writing the blog, Experian contacted us to say it’d read it and seen your responses and has now changed its mind about the ‘financial linking’ element. See Experian u-turn for the full details. It is also going to think more about how to protect the ‘joint and severally liable’ if their flatmate defaults.

    Credit reference agency Experian’s announced that by the end of 2012, your rental payment record could be added to credit files (see the Experian to monitor rents news story), so missed payments could kibosh mortgage and other applications.

    This has pros and cons, but my strong objection is it means you risk being financially linked to anyone you live with, so their problems or missed card payments can hit you.

    That seems a complete misunderstanding of who and how many flat shares work. Currently you can, of course, be credit linked if you get a mortgage with someone. That seems fair, it’s a major financial commitment usually with a spouse, close relative or close friend. However, with flat shares, it may be a cursory acquaintance, or very commonly someone you simply don’t know.

    This new credit file regime (see the Credit Rating guide for the basics) could mean when you move in with someone, you’re going to have to commit to at least financially getting into bed with them – and that’s unacceptable. It’s not all bad, though. There are some plus points, but in my view it needs big work to limit the risks. Let me run you through it…

    • Any change will need to be contractual.

      Landlords will only be able to report payments if you sign a contract allowing it. You have a right to refuse, but equally, they can simply refuse to rent to you. It’ll likely be big agencies that start doing this – the advantage for them is they can track who has a good rental record when they sign tenants up. 

    • Paying rent on time could help your credit situation.

      On the plus side, one letting agency says 90% of people pay their rent on time and doing so should help build their credit file. There’s also the fact that for flat sharers, they can assume their landlord may be doing a check that any new flatmate has a reasonable history of paying rent on time.

      Of course, for those with a bad history this could become a nightmare, already people are prevented from getting new mortgages due to a history that lasts six years – so I’m guessing tenancy rejections could follow the same path.

    • Someone else’s missed rent could scupper you getting a mortgage.

      Many tenancy agreements mean you’re ‘jointly and severally liable’ thus if one of you can’t pay, the other is liable for it. While this makes life easy for landlords, I’m not sure most flat share tenants are aware of the risk they’re taking, until someone doesn’t pay. And even if you are aware of the risks, the ‘flat share audition’ process isn’t good enough to weed out bad payers.

      In the past, if someone in the house didn’t pay, that was an immediate financial problem. Now it will be a long term one. As if you or anyone you live with misses a payment it could negatively hit your credit score on applications for borrowing, mobile phone contracts and  pay monthly car insurance.

      The biggest worry is for those who are renting while they save for a mortgage. While there’s no info yet, it seems sensible to assume lenders will take your rental record as a substantial indicator in their credit scoring to determine if they should lend.

    • It’s not just rent, financial linkage to flat mates means if they don’t pay credit cards, you could be hit.

      Currently, the only way to be financially linked is a joint bank account or mortgage – which makes sense.  It’s one reason we suggest if your partner has a poor history don’t get any joint products with them (even marriage doesn’t link you – just joint finances).

      Experian has told us that sharing a flat will mean linkage can happen too. The result is when you are credit scored for a product, they can look at the files of anyone you are linked to.

      So if you move in with someone you’ve never met, who has a poor history of missed bills or credit card payment, it could hit you – and kibosh applications. 

    The financial linking element of this, rams up against natural justice for me.  Individuals have no real way to find this out (and do we want people snooping and credit checking their flatmates anyway?). I intend to write to regulators, MPs, and the credit reference agencies to see if we can stop this financial linkage before it happens.

    Overall, the whole episode leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth. When explaining what goes on credit files, the usual explanation is the electoral role info, and court judgements against you and any credit agreements you have. Yet renting isn’t a credit agreement, nor are gas and electricity bills, which are also starting to creep in.

    I worry that this is a private company, making its own decision to stretch the net, who is policing that decision?

    If I’m honest I’m still working through the thought process and logic of this myself, so these are initial thoughts, and I’d love your views.


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    PIP breast implant refunds via credit card companies – will it work for everyone?

    PIP breast implant refunds via credit card companies – will it work for everyone?

    PIP breast implant refunds via credit card companies – will it work for everyone?

    PIP breast implant refunds via credit card companies – will it work for everyone?

    There’s big news today that a woman got a refund off Lloyds TSB for her PIP breast implants which had burst. This happened as she’d paid on a credit card and the purchase cost over £100, meaning under Section 75 law the card company is jointly liable for anything going wrong with the product.

    This has given welcome hope to many worried about implants – and as many questions have come my way, I’ve quickly knocked out some thoughts and clarification on what hope this brings to others.

    • Section 75 doesn’t give extra rights

    • I often say you get "extra protection" paying for something that costs over £100 on a credit card (always repay in full so there’s no interest) yet that doesn’t mean you get more rights, it just means you’ve someone else to complain to if things go wrong.

      Section 75 means you have identical rights with the card company as you do with the retailer or supplier. So if your fridge breaks down after a week and is obviously faulty, you could choose to take it to the company you bought it from, or equally you could make that complaint to the credit card provider (full explanation in the Section 75 guide).

      In this case, as the breast implant provider had gone into administration, there was no choice. She had to complain to the card company.

    • This is about your Sad Fart consumer rights

      As far as I read from the reports, the lady was relying on her ‘sale of goods act’ rights to make this complaint. These are what I call the Sad Fart rights, as they mean goods must be:

      Satisfactory quality, As Described, Fit for purpose, And last a Reasonable length of Time.

      These rules last six years from purchase. In the first six months it’s for the company to prove they weren’t faulty when bought, after that you must prove they were. Full explanation in the Consumer Rights guide.

    • The fault here was manifest

      Following on from the Sad Fart rules, that means in this lady’s case as the fault was obvious – a ruptured implant – that it was very likely not of satisfactory quality and possibly neither had they lasted a reasonable length of time. This clarity would have helped the claim.

      From my very cursory knowledge of the PIP issues, those who have implants which haven’t ruptured would have a more difficult argument as the fault is more difficult to prove. 

      And remember – it is for you to PROVE they were faulty WHEN YOU GOT THEM.

    • The fact these were recent impacts helps

      Under the Sad Fart laws, goods must last a ‘reasonable length of time’, up to a maximum of six years. There is no strict definition on what this time should be, it depends on the goods. 

      My usual way of explaining is to say if a 10p torch broke after a year and a £1,000 plasma TV also broke after a year, you’d probably say the first was reasonable, the second not.

      So here, as she had had the implants for three years when she realised there was an issue, it makes the "it didn’t last a reasonable time" argument stronger.

    • Does this set a precedent?

      No, not in a legal sense, though it does at least indicate Lloyds’ attitude to those with ruptured PIP implants. Whether this can be read across for those who had implants for longer, for implants that haven’t ruptured yet, or the attitude of other banks is a big question. Although certainly it helps strengthen the argument in those cases.

    • It does, however, open the door

      As a tactical decision it does, however, mean some people who are fighting for refunds from implant companies may want to switch target to their credit card provider if their implant company has a militant "no refund" stance.  

      After all, credit card companies have far deeper pockets and are less likely to be pushed into administration as this doesn’t affect their entire business model. (Please note whether that’s fair or not is a discussion for a different day.)

      At the very minimum, if I were a Lloyds customer who’d paid on a credit card, I would see this as a strong option.

    • It also allows you to fight at the Ombudsman not the courts

      One real advantage here for those who paid on credit cards is that they can appeal to the Ombudsman rather than the court if they are turned down by their provider.

      With consumer rights, if you complain to a company, and it turns you down, you’d need go to court. While hopefully you’d be put in the ‘small claims’ track of the court, which means you can’t have massive costs awarded against you, there is no guarantee of this.

      Yet if you’re challenging a finance company’s decision, eg, a credit card company refusing to pay out under Section 75 rules, then you can go, for free, to the Financial Ombudsman Service, without lawyers and with a much more simple process (full info in the Financial Ombudsman guide).

      Plus, while courts can only decide based on the law, the Ombudsman looks at three pieces of info:

      – The law.

      – Whether you’ve been ‘treated fairly’.

      – Standard industry practice.

      You may be thinking "being treated fairly" is woolly, and indeed it is. But that’s to your advantage, as it’s a much more diffuse characteristic. Plus, after the Lloyds decision, you could argue we already have some industry practice in favour of paying out.

    I hope some will find this brain dump useful – with these issues, it’s partly about waiting to see how things pan out. I’d love your comments below, especially if there are any consumer lawyers reading this.


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    The UK’s mortgage ticking time bomb

    The UK’s mortgage ticking time bomb

    The UK’s mortgage ticking time bomb

    Mortgage costs for most are hugely expensive –- a ticking time bomb ready to blight the finances of millions and put the economy at risk. Whether it’s a lack of political will, clout, or ideas, nowt’s being done to stop it.

    If you feel a sense of déjà vu over that sentence, don’t worry. It’s not you, it’s me. I first wrote about my fears of a mortgage ticking time bomb in November 2009. Sadly, things aren’t much better now.

    We’ve just seen Halifax announce it’s hiking standard variable (SVR) mortgage rates by 0.49%, RBS increase its offset’s rate by 0.25%, the Bank of Ireland reveal it’s hoicking rates by a huge 1.5% and Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks upping rates by 0.36%.

    While the change always feels bad, these aren’t the worst. There are other lenders with their SVRs up as high as 6%. It’s easy to think that isn’t such a problem as historically these rates still sound pretty cheap – but look at the bigger picture.

    To say UK interest rates are low right now is a bit like saying the phone-hacking scandal caused a small PR issue. Interest rates aren’t low, they’re stuck in a drain, wallowing 1.5% beneath the recorded 200-year historic low.

    The Bank of England’s original reason for slashing rates was economic stimulus, yet our nation’s financial arteries are still clogged. The margin lenders now make compared to before base rates plummeted means in real terms some are four percentage points higher than back then.

    The evidence

    So let’s have a bit of nerdom and play with the stats.

    • October 2008. Base rate: 4.5%. Halifax SVR: 6.5%.
    • May 2012. Base rate: 0.5% (I’m assuming it won’t move, though there’s no guarantee). Halifax SVR: 3.99%.

    Back then, the Halifax rate was 2% over the base rate. Now it’s 3.49%, a mammoth increase. And this is reflected as a whole:

    mortgage graph

    The average gap over base rate used to be around two percentage points. When rates were first slashed, Government pressure to keep it there was partially successful, but now the gap’s around four percentage points.

    However, there have been some minor improvements since I last wrote on this in 2009, at least with new mortgage deals:

    • October 2008. Base rate: 4.5%. Cheapest 5-year fix: 5.49%.
    • October 2009. Base rate: 0.5%. Cheapest 5-year fix: 4.99%.
    • March 2012. Base rate: 0.5%. Cheapest 5-year fix: 3.29%.

    However, the gap between base rates and mortgage rates is still far wider than back in 2008. Plus the required loan-to-value ratios have got more stringent, meaning you need far bigger equity in your home to get the hot rates.

    Of course, as many will know, fixed rates don’t actually follow base rates. Their funding’s more closely associated with swap rates which, in simple terms, are the City’s view on interest rates over a set period – and they’re depressed at the moment.

    Yet it still means whether you’re on an standard variable rate (SVR), or getting a new mortgage, the margins are now much higher than they were pre-crunch for all except those on tracker mortgages, who are still gleefully dancing around their tracker-mortgaged homes.

    Even then though, if you’re getting a NEW tracker, they’re now typically three percentage points above base rate (based on the average two-year tracker rate), where once it was half a point or even less.

    The underlying problem – evaporating equity

    Perhaps far more worrying is how many people are now forced to stick with their SVRs compared with before the base rate cut. This is all about the spectre of what I call evaporating equity. This affliction means you can’t get a new mortgage deal, due to a raft of new factors…

    • Tougher LTV limits. Pre-credit crunch, loan-to-value (LTV) ratios of over 100% (borrowing more than your home’s value) were possible and competitive rates were available at 95% LTV. Now to get a good deal, you need to borrow less than 75% of your home’s worth or usually 90% to get any deal at all. This cuts out huge swathes of existing mortgage holders.
    • Credit scoring. Credit history is a far bigger part of mortgage acceptability than it used to be. If you’ve had what were once relatively minor problems such as missed payments, you could still be scored out by some mainstream lenders. Of course, for the seriously credit-inflicted, there’s nowt available as sub-prime is (probably thankfully, on the whole) no more.
    • Self-employed. Once one of the great feeders of mortgage over-lending was self-certification mortgages, where the self-employed declared sometimes fictional earnings and were lent to based on that. These mortgages barely exist anymore, yet a by-product of the crackdown on this fraud is that it’s much more difficult for the self-employed, especially those without a few years of accountant-provided accounts to get a mortgage.
    • House price decline. The ‘value’ bit of LTVs means current house price values. So in the pockets where prices have plummeted, people’s LTVs have worsened. Many who were once in that competitive sub-75% zone aren’t any more.

    Ticking timebomb

    The paradox is that while mortgage rates have been relatively unresponsive to falling base rates, it’s likely they’ll shoot up, mostly in parallel, when they rise.

    Millions are locked into standard rates or high-margin trackers, or are due to be when their current deal ends. So when rates finally turn and start to rise, it’ll be like a smash-and-grab brick through windows.

    Imagine the base rate returns to 2008′s historically normal 5% (not a prediction – just a possibility). Someone with a £200,000 interest-only mortgage tracker would see their payment explode from £500 to £1,330 a month.

    For many on top of the recession-led financial freeze, that’s catastrophically unaffordable.

    Rising bills don’t simply flick back into place like elastic. The pain of increased costs out-balances the joy from when they fell. People have re-jigged their finances around new lower rates and locked into other commitments.

    Waiting to administer treatment when rates rise will be too late. This mortgage margin timebomb’s growing now, so we need Government to act. I’ve mentioned this problem over the past few years while giving evidence at parliamentary select committees and said it to MPs. Most seem to acknowledge the issue, but I’m simply not sure anyone (me included) knows what to do about it.

    And if nothing happens, that means many must prepare for the possibility of even harder income squeezes.

    DIY help

    You can’t bet on any government laying a golden mortgage egg anytime soon. Your best bet is to crack it yourself.

    • Repay your mortgage with savings. Reducing outstanding debt means you’re less at mercy from mortgage rate rises, and it helps lower your LTV, possibly meaning access to more competitive deals. Plus, it can add up. Someone with a £100,000 mortgage at 4%, overpaying £100 a month, would clear the mortgage 6 years earlier, saving £21,000 in interest (try it yourself using the Mortgage Overpayment Calculator).

      Of course, you should check whether you’re allowed to overpay without penalties first. If not, the penalties will usually kibosh any savings. Assuming no penalties, the financial mathematics to decide if it’s worth it are simple. If your after-tax savings rate’s lower than your mortgage rate, pay it off. If you used £1,000 of savings currently earning a decent 2% after-tax to repay a 5% mortgage, then you’re £30 a year up.

      If you’ve other more expensive debts, pay those off first. Plus keep an emergency fund, as with most mortgages, overpayments can’t be borrowed back, so ensure you’ve money to keep paying all bills and future mortgage commitments. For more, and a special calculator, see the Should I Repay My Mortgage? guide.

    • Build a war chest. If you’re on a super-cheap rate now and haven’t got savings, put money aside in case rates rise. This way, you’ll avoid mortgage payment default.

    • Get a mortgage broker. Once lenders salivated for your business. Now they cover their hands over deals like schoolkids preventing their neighbour copying. So have a mortgage broker on call to speedily grab short-lived deals, preferably one who’s ‘whole-of-market’, meaning it must look at all the mortgages available to it. See the Mortgage Broker guide.

    • Check the FSA best buy tables. Some lenders deliberately pump out ‘direct only’ deals which can’t be accessed by brokers. They should appear on www.fsa.gov.uk/tables though, so check that and if it looks good, ask your broker to crunch the numbers (see the free Remortgage Guide for more help).


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    We don’t hate banks — busting this and other myths about MoneySavingExpert.com

    We don't hate banks

    We don't hate banks

    No one has ever quite said to me, "you run that one man, bank-hating website charity, to help those in debt stop spending".

    But in combination, that’s some of the assumptions people make about the site. So I thought it time for a bit of myth busting.

    1. MoneySavingExpert.com hates banks.

      Not true. We hate bad bank behaviour, mis-selling, treating customers poorly and over-expensive products. Yet we don’t hate banks or any company simply for existing.

      A company’s job is to make money. There’s nothing wrong with that (unless you’re an anti-capitalist – I’m not). Our job as consumers is to keep our cash in our pockets. I call this the Adversarial Consumer Society (I go on about it in detail in The Money Diet).

      The fact the two are sometimes in opposition doesn’t make either wrong. It’s just like when Manchester United play Manchester City (my team). I don’t want United to score, but I don’t think they’re wrong for trying.

      The real problem is that banks and companies are much better at their jobs than consumers are at ours. Hence there’s a misbalance in the system. When I started the site I used to say that was one of its remits, to give buyers training. In recent years, it’s why we’ve been campaigning so hard to get financial education into schools.

      I’m often asked to go on programmes when banks announce profits of billions, as they think I’ll "rant" about it. I usually have to disabuse them of this notion. I’ve no problem with banks making profits, that’s good for their shareholders and the economy. 

      The issue is when those profits are from systemic PPI mis-selling, unfair bank charges or quietly dropping their savings interest to 0.1%. If profits are from competition and great deals – then I hope they’re large.

    2. MSE users are poor and in debt.

      Not true. I’m never quite sure why people think this. Of course, sadly we have many users who are in debt, who’ve had problems, who need help and we do our best to provide good information for them (see the Debt Help guide).

      This site is about saving money, and that applies to everyone. Quite rightly, many savers and more affluent people use the site too — people who earn well and want to make their money stretch as far as they can. Just look at the results of this poll from January when we asked how much users are worth:

      In debt: over £1 million more debt than savings/assets
      115 votes (0 %)
      In debt: £250,000 – £1 million more debt than savings/assets
      237 votes (1 %)
      In debt £100,000 – £249,999 more debt than savings/assets
      1,044 votes (4 %)
      In debt £25,000 – £99,999 more debt than savings/assets
      1,622 votes (7 %)
      In debt £10,000 – £24,999 more debt than savings/assets
      1,319 votes (5 %)
      In debt: £5,000 – £9,999 more debt than savings
      895 votes (4 %)
      In debt: Up to £4,999 more debt than savings
      1,034 votes (4 %)
      Roughly same debt as savings (or neither of both)
      1,198 votes (5 %)
      Saver: up to £4,999 more savings/assets than debt
      889 votes (4 %)
      Saver: £5,000 – £9,999 more savings/assets than debt
      777 votes (3 %)
      Saver: £10,000 – £24,999 more savings/assets than debt
      1,426 votes (6 %)
      Saver: £25,000 – £99,999 more savings/assets than debt
      3,608 votes (15 %)
      Saver: £100,000 – £249,999 more savings/assets than debt
      4,413 votes (18 %)
      Saver: £250,000 – £1 million more savings/assets than debt
      4,796 votes (20 %)
      Saver: over £1 million more savings/assets than debt
      723 votes (3 %)

      What it shows is that MSE users are pretty similar to the demographic of internet users and society as a whole. Some have problems, others just want to make the most of their money.

    3. I run it by myself in my bedroom.

      Not true. Thankfully I’ve had this less and less in recent years. MSE is a top 100 UK website, and there’s no way one person could do it all. Just think of the content of the weekly email and all the updated articles it links to – that’s equivalent to a weekly newspaper on its own.

      There are now 40 full-time members of the team, and a talented bunch they are too. On the editorial team, we have a money desk, consumer desk and deals desk — all researching and writing to feed the monstrous demand for info. For a while now our guides and news stories have had by-lines, the team have their own blog and you’ll see the likes of MSE Dan, Jenny, Guy, Archna and others being quoted more and more in the papers.

      Then there are the technical and design teams, the forum team, a legal team (mostly for defending claims made against forum content) and admin and finance like anywhere else.

      It does amuse me a little when I get asked: "What do you do when you leave the TV studio?" Actually, running and writing for this site and orchestrating the team is my real job, and a big one it is.

    4. MSE is non-profit.

      Not true. Our ethical stance means our core focus is always giving the best possible information to consumers based solely on what is the best deal. For that reason, companies can’t pay to appear on MSE — they are only ever included on editorial merit.

      Yet if something is a top deal and we’re including it, it then goes to our small commercial team who see if they can find an identical link to the product that is affiliated (it’s tracked and pays if you act on it). For full information on how this works, see the How The Site Is Financed guide.

      It’s very important users understand how the site is financed and how we operate. For this reason, we link to it on every page, it is prominent on every article. If a link does pay, we put a * by it and give you an alternative link that isn’t affiliated.

    5. MoneySaving is all about thrift.

      Not true. MoneySaving and thrift aren’t the same thing. The primary aim of MSE is about cutting bills without cutting back. In other words, getting more for your money.

      Thrift is far more about spending less, cutting back and using your time and effort instead. While a laudable aim, and certainly a related family (and covered well by the Old Style MoneySaving board in our forum), that isn’t our primary remit.

      In fact the purpose of this site isn’t to stop anyone spending, or enjoying using their money, PROVIDED THEY CAN AFFORD IT. It’s about spending less to get the same so you get more out of your cash. Whether that’s to help repay debts, buy a new car, or for a great night out.

    I remember being on a telly programme once when a celeb said: "I once flew to New York on Concorde and came back on the QE2 – you’re going to really tell me off, aren’t you?" So I asked if she was in debt – she wasn’t. Could she afford it? She could.

    So my answer was, provided she paid the cheapest price for it – it sounded fantastic.


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com

    “Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board” – consultation results

    "Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board" – consultation results

    "Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board" – consultation results

    A few weeks ago, I launched a user consultation into the future of the forum’s Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board. The board was originally set up to discuss taking advantage of risk-free intro loopholes, but over recent years their growing complexity has made it difficult for the forum team to manage.

    You can read the full explanation of the issues we face and our concerns about the board here – GIOL consultation. I’m going to write on as if you’ve read that…

    The consultation included the option of shutting the board. We received a large amount of mostly constructive feedback, primarily arguing for keeping the board open, though some did believe it best closed.

    I’d like to thank the large numbers who took part for taking the time to respond and for some clever and thought-through solutions. It’s really appreciated and it’s changed our views. (Of course there were also a small minority who were rude and aggressive, who did themselves no favours, as we simply skipped past their posts.) 

    Our proposals after the feedback

    There were many very useful ideas. Overall, we decided those who use the board care about it greatly and derive benefit from it. So we focused our time on trying to work on a system to keep the board open while protecting users. There are two areas…

    1. More clear guidance for users of the risks

    – The board will be renamed "Matched Betting board"

    – We will add an interstitial page for first time users (by default, existing users will also see it once). This will clearly state what "matched betting" is about, that caution and attention to detail is required to ensure that it’s risk-free, as well as reminding users that posting gambling deals themselves is strictly against the rules. The user will need to read and agree to this (via a tick box) before they may visit the board.

    – There is already a warning on top of every page of the board. This will be cleaned up and updated.

    2.  New super-user ‘report a risk’ system

    - We will add a "report a risk" button [although this name may change] for a group of selected experienced users. They can click the button if they believe the post falls foul of the site’s "no risks" policy. If a certain number of those users click it, the thread will be temporarily deleted, pending a decision by our Forum Team. This works in much the same way as the current spam reporting button.

    – We will ask those super-users to err on the side of caution. If it could be risky, then report.

    – The Forum Team will also err on the side of caution, and things will only be reactivated if we are sure they don’t constitute a breach of the rules.

    – This "report a risk" system will work alongside the current system which allows anyone in any board to report a post to the Forum Team for breaching the rules.

    – We’re aiming to add one more board guide to this board to support the current guides.

    We will listen to any further constructive suggestions, though obviously we need to get this system under way first. We aim to do that as soon as possible (though some of it requires technical adaptation, which can take time). 

    I’d ask all users of this free resource to work with us on this – and understand the ‘erring on the side of caution’ stance. We want the board to continue and are working towards that. However, if this system doesn’t work, we will have to look again at closing the board rather than exposing the site and its users to undue risks.


    Comment via Facebook login

    This is an open discussion; anyone can post. Comments may be edited, and are only published during the working day.
    Please report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous posts (inc username) to fbteam@moneysavingexpert.com