Mind the Gap!

Recently there have been reports on the radio from consumers complaining about a company after they had bought a vehicle from them and then experienced high pressure selling to take up Gap Insurance. This is not insurance against getting trapped on the Underground or stuck inside a certain High Street clothing store, but a policy that covers the period between what you pay for a car on the day you buy it, and what it might be worth later if you have an accident or wrote it off and needed to claim on your insurance.
High pressure selling by car salesman angers consumers

For one particular buyer who had put a deposit on a second hand car, arranged for the change in registration documents and returned with a banker’s cheque for the outstanding amount, it came as a surprise at just how high pressured gap insurance selling could be. After completing the sale and then being offered gap insurance, the buyer refused, at which point the salesman became fairly insistent and when the manager was called and again the buyer refused the policy, he was told that the sale of the car could not go through. Fortunately the buyer knew his consumer rights and drove away in the car he had purchased whilst refusing to sign a waiver from the salesman because he didn’t want gap insurance. The car company staff had insisted this was a legal requirement under the Financial Services Act, a point that was refuted by Professor of Consumer Law at Plymouth University on Radio 4 You and Yours this week.

Gap Insurance could be an unnecessary additional expense for consumers

When it comes to insurance policies particularly around cars it does pay to do a little research so that you don’t get bullied into buying something that you don’t need. For instance, if you buy a car and you don’t take out a comprehensive insurance policy, only Third Party, then it is pointless getting Gap Insurance because it won’t kick in unless you have comprehensive insurance. It did set me thinking, as I am in the process of looking for a second or third hand car, what use would I have for Gap Insurance? Possibly if I was to take out a financial plan to fund my new transport and then on the way home, wrote off the vehicle, I would be stuck with paying out for a car I no longer had. On the other hand, comprehensive car policies should cover this type of incident and there is usually something included that could cover you in the financial agreements or your other motor policies.

The hard selling of these policies might be coming to the fore because for some salespeople, perhaps they come with a hefty commission, which is not a benefit to the consumer. We pay out enough as it is for cars and their related insurance premiums and road tax so don’t get stuck with something that you, in all probability, do not need.

If you have had someone trying a hard sell on Gap Insurance recently then let us know – we’re listening!

Read More

Taxing times ahead as Revenues and Customs aim to sell on personal data

Plans are currently under consideration that would allow HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC) to share personal data about UK taxpayers’ finances with private companies. If this goes through then HMRC could release data to public bodies, researchers or other third party companies and “charging options” are being considered at this moment linked to release of this “anonymous” data. It does seem to be an absolute fallacy that HMRC collect revenue and information from UK taxpayers and then want to get paid for selling on this information, as if the taxpayer is a commodity to be bartered on the open market. In the light of the debacle of the NHS medical records database controversy recently, what is the guarantee of customer care, anonymity and security of information if this does go ahead?

Temporary tax that has lasted 215 years

Out of curiosity I looked into the history of taxation and income tax and was surprised to find that it had been going since 1799. It was introduced as a “temporary” tax in order to pay for the war against the French during the Napoleonic Wars.  At the time it was set at a rate of 10% on the total income of the taxpayer, this was from all sources above £60. The tax was to be collected six times a year and there were reductions on income up to £200 and at the time it raised about £6million to fund the fight against Napoleon. It is still today a temporary tax, which many people might not realise, and it expires each year on April 5^th, hence this is the end of the financial year. Parliament have to reapply the tax with an annual Financial Act, and it is this Act, along with other regulations that HMRC have to abide by.

Serious risks to privacy of individual level data?

Concerns have already been voiced about this latest plan from the HMRC, who have been very clear that if this does go ahead, then anonymity is their priority. It was The Guardian newspaper who led with this story and who reported that “charging options” were being looked at by officials. This has given rise to the assumption that firms could pay out to access the data. HMRC have said that they would “only share data if it would generate clear public benefits,” but so far it would seem that the only people to benefit would be HMRC, if they will be charging for this service, and the firms that receive the data.

Would you like to see your personal financial data shared (anonymously) without your consent? Let us know at iRateiSlate – we’re listening!

Read More

Takeaways offering sham lamb could find themselves behind baas

Fast food takeaways are to face a new testing programme after it was found that nearly a third of lamb takeaways it checked, contained a different meat. The Food Standards Agency found that the takeaways, usually curries or kebabs, were wrongly described with 25 out of the 145 samples tested, found to contain beef and all in all 43 out of the 145 were not what they were supposed to be. There was no horsemeat found but chicken and turkey appeared in the so called “lamb” dishes. In London and Birmingham when Which? carried out their own testing they found an even higher proportion, around 40%, were wrongly labelled so now local authorities are being asked to carry out their own tests following through on ensuring quality customer care.

Food fraudsters play on consumer ignorance

Whilst I would find it hard to distinguish lamb from other meats in a curry due to the spiciness of the sauce surrounding it, I do have to say the revolving slab of kebab meat displayed on  some takeaway counters has often left me wondering just exactly form of animal protein it is. Food swindlers are definitely helped by consumer ignorance and food fraud is not a new form of crime. Even the Romans used to doctor their drink with leaded wine, and it wasn’t until the development of our scientific ability that we were able to highlight doctoring of food and drink on a large scale. This was noted in Victorian times, when a scientist put coffee under the microscope and discovered that genuine coffee it certainly wasn’t and if you wanted a dollop of pure mustard to have with your roast beef then London wasn’t the place to get it in the 1800's.

£5,000 fines for those who wrongly label food products

The FSA have noted that the message still isn’t getting through to takeaway owners, who have been substituting lamb for cheaper meats. If they are found to be doing this and incorrectly labelling food dishes they can be fined up to £5,000 which should certainly grab their attention. To reinforce this, local authorities will be required to take 300 samples of lamb dishes from takeaways starting next month.

Which? is also pushing for further testing of products to restore consumer confidence in meat and to follow through on the recommendations of the Elliott Review which was set up following the horsemeat scandal. Professor Elliott made 48 recommendations one of which included setting up a food crime unit to counteract food fraud. This certainly got my attention at the time and I wondered what exactly would we call these food police and then it came to me – The Frying Squad!

If you have had any doubts or suspicions about fast food you have purchased recently let us know – we’re listening!

Read More

Consumers take for a ride over online car frauds

Last year over six and a half consumers reported they had been the subject of a scam involving on line car sales. This week saw two of these people complaining about a company that has recently been operating under the name of Berenscarsales.co.uk. (I checked and this site has now been disabled) They were speaking with Radio 4 You and Yours presenter about how they both paid out for a car advertised on line which then never materialized. When asked why they both transferred money across to this companies bank account, both paying £7000 each, they had carried out what they felt were reasonable checks and spoken with a salesman on the telephone before payment went out.

Quality kite mark on website was false

The website was very well set up, according to one of the buyers and it also had the Black Horse Approved Dealer logo which she felt meant it was a legitimate site. This is a quality kite mark that Lloyds Bank use with their approved dealers but suffice to say they checked and told You and Yours that Berens was not on their list. Both buyers had checked the registrations of the car they thought they were buying, but a spokesperson from GetSafeOnline said that unfortunately this didn’t mean it was a legitimate sale. The scammers will look around the streets for a car, note down the make etc. and take down the registration number and then put that up as the number of the car being sold.

Not such a Simple Simon

The people who lost their money had seen a classified advert on eBay and contacted the dealer, who came back and gave his name as Simon Mortimer to one of the women and Simon Stubbings to the other. Interestingly, the website which claimed Berens was a family business going back several years, only registered the website on 11 March 2014 under the name Simon Walton. (The address that was given turned out to be a false one.) After discussing details of the vehicle in both cases Simon 1 or Simon 2 just so happened to have a driver delivering a Bentley, or a car transporter going near to both prospective buyers’ homes so would get their car to them free of charge. Of course the car never turned up and as this was a transfer between bank accounts, the buyers were not protected so have lost their money.

GetSafeOnline advice when buying online is to get onto a bus or train or bike or car and go and see the car you are buying. If you have to put a deposit down, then make it a small one and put it on your credit card so you have some protection if it turns out to be a scam. In the meantime You and Yours are asking if anyone else has been conned by Simon Mortimer, Stubbings or Walton and we would like to know too-also if you are a legitimate online car sales company let us know the checks you carry out with your buyers. In the meantime take heed if you are planning on buying a new car on the internet and let us know how you get on – we’re listening!

Read More

Google Glass goes on sale allowing consumers to make a spectacle of themselves

On April 15 for one day only in the States, we shall be able to purchase for the sum of $1500 or around £894, the latest in wearable technology – the Google goggles or Glass.  UK consumers will have to wait until around May time before getting their hands on this little device which basically puts smartphone capabilities in a tiny screen just in front of your eye. So in future if faced with poor customer service when out shopping, you presumably will be able to film each transaction and then fire off an email to the stores Head Office if you are not happy, before the item has gone into the bag and the receipt handed over to you.

Wink Wink, Say no more!

Apparently you have to lift your head to turn the device on, stroke and tap the side of the frame to work your way through the menu, and along with the video making capabilities, you can then wink your eye to take a picture. Sitting on the bus or in the car or watching people walk along the street, many of them have blue flashing ear pieces attached behind one ear, or seem to be talking to themselves until you spot the wires around their necks.

Now we will be faced, in the future, with stroking and tapping taking place whilst wearing a bizarre piece of headgear that looks like something Joe 90 would have worn (for anyone under the age of 50 feel free to Google or You Tube ). When the winking starts, then please don’t feel offended or pleased, depending on your individual viewpoint, as the person concerned is probably just trying to take a selfie of themselves wearing the new Glass.

Definitely a case of Vision Express!

As a wearer of glasses, I couldn’t work out how this device would fit around my current pair of specs, and even if I did ever think to get myself a Glass (which I often do but it usually comes filled with a cold Sauvignon Blanc) then would I be able to cope with the information overload of tweets, emails and news alerts that would keep popping up out of the corner of my eye. News journalists are trialling them out at present to see if they can be used to take out and about reporting, others are seeing if it can be of benefit to those with impaired sight.

We will have to wait at least a month for developers in the UK to get hold of these items and they will come at a price. Is this something you could see yourself wearing in the future and if so, why would they make your life a lot easier – let us know – we’re listening!

Read More

Retailers bogged down in food wast debate over BOGOF promotions

Supermarkets have been told that in order to reduce the amount of food waste produced 
each year they should stop offering customer choices in the form of Buy One Get One Free promotions or BOGOF’s as they are known. These offers are part of the reason why consumers are throwing away a massive amount of food every year according to a report out today. Retailers have been criticised about their lack of responsibility in helping to prevent food waste in the home and this started the hackles rising as I read the report on the BBC news this Sunday lunchtime. A House of Lords European Union Committee said that 15 tonnes of food were wasted every year and more should be given to food banks rather than thrown away.
Retailers blamed for excessive food waste in UK

Back in the 1980’s when I was a young graduate trainee I worked for a large retail outlet that also sold food, and not just any food. At the end of each day whatever was left on the food counters that could not be sold to the public, was sold at half price to the staff. The rest was collected by two individuals, one who worked for the local homeless shelter and the other a farmer who collected the waste vegetables and fruit for his pigs. This system served the company very well for a number of years until bureaucracy got in the way and we were told that for a number of reasons, health and safety being one that we could no longer do this and anything left over had to be bagged up and put out with the rest of the rubbish.

This was a very responsible retailer who kept their food waste to a minimum and by donating fresh and unsold food to a local shelter, years before food banks started up, kept a number of homeless well fed every day of the week. If memory serves, this wasn’t the only retailer who carried out this sort of service as well and I would suggest that to criticise them now is not acceptable. As for contributing to consumers wasting food, then more education and training around making the most of cooking from fresh, freezing and preserving perishables, starting with bringing back proper cookery lessons in schools would be a better starting point. Food banks are a great idea and one that should be supported, but how did we get the point where people cannot afford to feed themselves and their families?

Responsible consumers will lose out if BOGOF's go

The House of Lords Committee are now stating retailers should be sending food waste to charitable organisations i.e. food banks which is what many used to do for years. A lot of households keep to their budget by the BOGOF promotions and ensure they cook or freeze the cheap perishable items they buy so why should they be penalised?

Instead of pointing the finger these MP’s should be pulling it out and coming up with better solutions and practical schemes to redress some of the economic inequalities in the country.

If you rely on food promotions and BOGOF’s to keep to your food budget let us know how it will affect you if these are stopped – we’re listening!

Read More

Collective switching schemes – a waste of money and energy?

Today’s announcement about a government scheme targeted at buying cheaper energy through collective switching schemes costing £100 more per household than it saved, has led me to question yet again who is it that comes up with these ideas and throws public money at them in the name of customer choices without really thinking it through. This time it was the Department for Energy and Climate Change who gave £5 million to local councils to promote collective buying schemes in order to support vulnerable consumers or those in the fuel poverty trap, helping them switch energy supplier and saving themselves money. A very laudable thought, but in reality the average cost saving after switching was £131 but it cost £231 per household to help them switch!

Consumers switching off to collective bargaining schemes

Collective switching is basically collective bargaining, with the thought that if there is large number of people in the one scheme looking for the best price in energy, then you can negotiate a good deal for a large amount of people. Over 190,000 people registered for this scheme by the end of 2013 but according to Radio 4 You and Yours consumer programme, only 10% of those households went on to switch suppliers. This year the figure has dropped to 10,000 registering an interest.

The presenters spoke with one council in Greater Manchester who got 5,000 people to sign up, on average they all saved around £126 per household but the cost of doing this was £86. Oldham Council spent their grant of £400,000 on marketing and dedicated energy help lines to get residents to sign up and their spokeswoman said that although they were one of the Councils that managed to save more than they spent, they would not be involved in the scheme again.

Only 7 out of 31 councils saved more than they spent

Out of the 31 schemes set up with local authorities only 7 councils, including Oldham Council, saved more than they spent which does seem a shocking waste of public money. The Department for Energy and Climate Change said that the exercise was “to increase engagement” and they had now got useful data from these pilots to “help future collective switching schemes engage with consumers”. Surely they could have increased their engagement in a much cheaper way, for example, we all pay our council tax so our councils have information on all of its residents and its businesses, why not send out the information and get the councils to hold awareness raising sessions on collective switching. Then target the £5million at helping individual households to insulate their homes or gain access on line and give advice and support on how to compare energy prices.

If you were involved in collective switching and it worked for you, let us know – we’re listening!

Read More