A few days ago I wrote an article about finding a fixed rate savings account with a competitive rate of interest. Not rocket science, you'd have thought - but it's certainly not that straightforward either.
For a start, some price comparison websites are fond of listing 'best sellers' or 'sponsored products' above the best buys and they don't always compare like with like (some websites exclude deals that come with short term bonus rates while others don't etc). The upshot is that you have to take the time to look at two or three different price comparison sites to be sure of getting the best deal.
Next you have to look at the catches - are you tied into taking out a bank account or investment product with the bank or building society in question? For example, Santander has one year bond paying 4.5%, which is head and shoulders above the rest. Look a little closer and you'll see that you have to invest the same amount as you put into the bond into a 'qualifying investment product'.
It might be the case that Santander's investment is the right one for you, but you shouldn't take out an investment product on the basis of a good rate on a linked savings account - not unless you've checked out the investment product thoroughly.
But it's not just the conditions and catches that you have to watch out for - there's the issue of safety as well. After the shock of the credit crisis most of us a bit a wary about chasing the highest rate without knowing how our savings are protected but finding out how you might be compensated should the bank fail isn't exactly straightforward either. I was trying to cut the explanation down to a couple of short sentences, but it was a struggle.
There is one set of rules for banks based or operating in the UK, another for those headquartered in the EEA, which means that banks based in the EEA can top up so that they offer the same level of protection as banks based in the UK if they want to but they don't have to.
And what about banks in the UK that are owned by the same parent company? Well, in some cases they may share a banking licence with the parent company in others they may not and the amount of your savings that are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme are linked to the way the bank is licensed, not its brand name(your savings are covered up to a limit of £50,000 per banking licence).
I appreciate that banks and building societies will want to compete with each other for market share and that the savings safety scheme was put together when the banking landscape was far simpler. But the fact is that many people feel - understandably - bewildered about making what should be a relatively straightforward decision.
Financial services companies often bemoan the fact that people in the UK aren't very engaged with their finances - particularly long term savings. Perhaps it would be easier if the process of picking a savings account wasn't so complicated.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Friday, 23 July 2010
Mortgage errors
The news that 18,000 people were charged the wrong amount on their mortgage may not seem like that big a deal - at first sight. They weren't mis-sold a financial product or lured into taking out a loan they could not afford and - given the millions of mortgages in existence - the figures seem relatively small.
The reason it ended up getting extensive coverage owed more to the way the Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks handled the aftermath than to the error itself. It seems that the original mistake went back to 2008 when the banks' computer systems made a mistake on some tracker and discount rate mortgages on both repayment an interest-only mortgages, but it took Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks until earlier this year to spot it.
The banks say that around half of the 18,000 borrowers who are affected are being asked for an extra £25 a month - although some are having to pay much more. What's interesting...to me at least...is that they've decided not to automatically write off the shortfall, which they say on a £25 a month extra payment works out at £2 a month - so not exactly a fortune.
This isn't exactly a common problem but the last time this happened, my mortgage spy (SavvyWoman's mortgage expert Ray Boulger) tells me that the lender in question wiped off the shortfall.
Why won't Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks do the same? They say they are treating complaints on an individual basis and that they are offering compensation for those who are having problems making the higher payments. But not - it seems - for those who don't complain.
Having found out that Yorkshire and Clydesdale are happy to compensate some of its customers, I'm sure others will be tempted to complain as well. If they do complain and are not happy with the banks' response they can take their case to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
While the FOS will look at each case individually, it is more sympathetic to complaints where it was the lender's fault (which Yorkshire and Clydesdale have not denied) and where the customer couldn't have realised that a mistake had been made. This is a bit trickier, but customers shouldn't be expected to be mortgage experts (that's the bank's job) and even if your mortgage payment fell quite dramatically, at the time the error happened tracker mortgage rates were plummeting.
In these tough times I can see that it might seem hard to justify offering to pay the shortfall for customers before they'd even thought of complaining. But in terms of goodwill and loyalty, it would have been a relatively small investment. Now it's quite possible that the banks will lose a lot more money. Every case that goes to the Financial Ombudsman Service is free for consumers but costs the banks £500.
And if even 50% of the customers who aren't happy decide to switch mortgage lenders when their deal comes to an end, they could lose thousands of borrowers. It's always said that it's not the mistake, it's how you deal with it that matters. Maybe it's a lesson that the Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks could learn.
The reason it ended up getting extensive coverage owed more to the way the Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks handled the aftermath than to the error itself. It seems that the original mistake went back to 2008 when the banks' computer systems made a mistake on some tracker and discount rate mortgages on both repayment an interest-only mortgages, but it took Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks until earlier this year to spot it.
The banks say that around half of the 18,000 borrowers who are affected are being asked for an extra £25 a month - although some are having to pay much more. What's interesting...to me at least...is that they've decided not to automatically write off the shortfall, which they say on a £25 a month extra payment works out at £2 a month - so not exactly a fortune.
This isn't exactly a common problem but the last time this happened, my mortgage spy (SavvyWoman's mortgage expert Ray Boulger) tells me that the lender in question wiped off the shortfall.
Why won't Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks do the same? They say they are treating complaints on an individual basis and that they are offering compensation for those who are having problems making the higher payments. But not - it seems - for those who don't complain.
Having found out that Yorkshire and Clydesdale are happy to compensate some of its customers, I'm sure others will be tempted to complain as well. If they do complain and are not happy with the banks' response they can take their case to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
While the FOS will look at each case individually, it is more sympathetic to complaints where it was the lender's fault (which Yorkshire and Clydesdale have not denied) and where the customer couldn't have realised that a mistake had been made. This is a bit trickier, but customers shouldn't be expected to be mortgage experts (that's the bank's job) and even if your mortgage payment fell quite dramatically, at the time the error happened tracker mortgage rates were plummeting.
In these tough times I can see that it might seem hard to justify offering to pay the shortfall for customers before they'd even thought of complaining. But in terms of goodwill and loyalty, it would have been a relatively small investment. Now it's quite possible that the banks will lose a lot more money. Every case that goes to the Financial Ombudsman Service is free for consumers but costs the banks £500.
And if even 50% of the customers who aren't happy decide to switch mortgage lenders when their deal comes to an end, they could lose thousands of borrowers. It's always said that it's not the mistake, it's how you deal with it that matters. Maybe it's a lesson that the Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks could learn.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Families with disabled children struggle financially
On Saturday I was interviewed on BBC Breakfast about some research carried out by a charity called Contact a Family. It surveyed over 1,100 families with one or more disabled children and found that 23% had gone without heating, 34% were behind with credit card or loan repayments and one in seven went without food.
Most of these figures showed a deterioration from the last time the research was carried out in 2008. They reveal a struggle that many families with disabled children face to arrange child care (which is far harder to access if you have a disabled and often much more expensive), combine caring for a disabled child with work and to do more than survive financially.
No one would pretend that the benefits system is straightfoward, whatever type of state help you want to claim. But disability living allowance (DLA), which is the main benefit disabled children are entitled to, is particularly complex. There are two different components of the benefit (care and mobility components) which can be paid at several different levels. And assessing whether a child needs extra care because they are disabled or because they are a child is not always clear cut.
Add to that the fact that most parents find out about benefits they're entitled to through other parents whose children have the same disability and you can see how hit and miss the system is.
There are no government figures on the number of families with disabled children who claim disability benefits, but charities estimate that as many as 40% of parents don't get the help they're entitled to.
In this period of austerity the government is looking to reduce spending on welfare, not increase it. But if families with disabled children are getting further into debt or going without food and heating, something needs to be done. How about better signposting of benefits so that families are told about the help they may be entitled to when they receive a diagnosis for their child?
And what about encouraging employers to be more flexible? At the moment you only have the right to ask for flexible working once you've been in a job for six months. For families with disabled children who want to get back into work, that six-month 'hurdle' can be an impossible one to clear. Some companies may genuinely struggle to give these employees the flexibility they need. But I bet some could think of more creative ways of working than 9-5. What do you think?
Most of these figures showed a deterioration from the last time the research was carried out in 2008. They reveal a struggle that many families with disabled children face to arrange child care (which is far harder to access if you have a disabled and often much more expensive), combine caring for a disabled child with work and to do more than survive financially.
No one would pretend that the benefits system is straightfoward, whatever type of state help you want to claim. But disability living allowance (DLA), which is the main benefit disabled children are entitled to, is particularly complex. There are two different components of the benefit (care and mobility components) which can be paid at several different levels. And assessing whether a child needs extra care because they are disabled or because they are a child is not always clear cut.
Add to that the fact that most parents find out about benefits they're entitled to through other parents whose children have the same disability and you can see how hit and miss the system is.
There are no government figures on the number of families with disabled children who claim disability benefits, but charities estimate that as many as 40% of parents don't get the help they're entitled to.
In this period of austerity the government is looking to reduce spending on welfare, not increase it. But if families with disabled children are getting further into debt or going without food and heating, something needs to be done. How about better signposting of benefits so that families are told about the help they may be entitled to when they receive a diagnosis for their child?
And what about encouraging employers to be more flexible? At the moment you only have the right to ask for flexible working once you've been in a job for six months. For families with disabled children who want to get back into work, that six-month 'hurdle' can be an impossible one to clear. Some companies may genuinely struggle to give these employees the flexibility they need. But I bet some could think of more creative ways of working than 9-5. What do you think?
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Public Sector Pensions
The government has asked John Hutton to carry out a review of public sector pensions. There's no doubt that the cost of providing a final salary pension for workers in the public sector is rising and, at a time when the UK's finances are in a mess, it's right that public sector pensions, along with other spending, should be looked at.
But it's important that any changes made don't penalise one section of the public sector workforce disproportionately. We don't yet know what the Hutton review will suggest, there is a real danger that cutbacks to public sector pensions across the board could have the effect of penalising women.
We all know that women retire on far less than men. Figures from the Prudential show that 35% women will retire 'in poverty' (as defined by the Joseph Rowntree foundation) this year. If women give up work to have children, retirement saving becomes a luxury.
The one time when women do save for their retirement is when they work in the public sector. 60% of those who join public sector pensions are women; in the private sector the figure is 40%. But we're not talking a 'gold plated' retirement as the average public sector pension is around £7,000 a year and women - generally - receive far less. In local government, the average pension is around £4,400, but for women it's £2,600. Around half of women in the NHS retire on a public sector pension of £3,500 - that's less than £70 a week on top of the state pension.
In a way these figures show the big success of public sector pensions - the fact that they've encouraged people on lower incomes to save for their retirement, which doesn't happen to the same extent in the private sector.
What we do need is long term affordability and sustainability of public sector pensions (and there are some imaginative ways that could reduce the costs while protecting the pensions of those on the lowest incomes). What we don't need are changes that will hit the lowest paid workers - who are mainly women - hard. Reducing their pension benefits could just tip them into means-tested benefits, which hardly seems fair and - ultimately - is unlikely to give the government the savings it's looking for.
But it's important that any changes made don't penalise one section of the public sector workforce disproportionately. We don't yet know what the Hutton review will suggest, there is a real danger that cutbacks to public sector pensions across the board could have the effect of penalising women.
We all know that women retire on far less than men. Figures from the Prudential show that 35% women will retire 'in poverty' (as defined by the Joseph Rowntree foundation) this year. If women give up work to have children, retirement saving becomes a luxury.
The one time when women do save for their retirement is when they work in the public sector. 60% of those who join public sector pensions are women; in the private sector the figure is 40%. But we're not talking a 'gold plated' retirement as the average public sector pension is around £7,000 a year and women - generally - receive far less. In local government, the average pension is around £4,400, but for women it's £2,600. Around half of women in the NHS retire on a public sector pension of £3,500 - that's less than £70 a week on top of the state pension.
In a way these figures show the big success of public sector pensions - the fact that they've encouraged people on lower incomes to save for their retirement, which doesn't happen to the same extent in the private sector.
What we do need is long term affordability and sustainability of public sector pensions (and there are some imaginative ways that could reduce the costs while protecting the pensions of those on the lowest incomes). What we don't need are changes that will hit the lowest paid workers - who are mainly women - hard. Reducing their pension benefits could just tip them into means-tested benefits, which hardly seems fair and - ultimately - is unlikely to give the government the savings it's looking for.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Who's cashing in on ISA rates?
A few weeks ago I wrote an article for SavvyWoman about switching cash ISAs and - knowing how fond banks and building societies are of changing rates - last weekend I checked that the rates were up to date.
What was interesting, no, let me rephrase that, somewhat shocking, was how low some cash ISA rates were. Did you know that some ISA providers will take your money and give you a tax-free return of 0.10%. Yup, a tenth of one percent.
That means even if you paid in the current tax year's maximum amount of £5,100 you'd still only earn just over a fiver in interest after a year. That's enough for a fish and chip supper or a bottle of nail varnish, but it's not much to show for saving several thousand pounds for 12 months.
OK so let's name some names - Santander, which - rightly - got lots of publicity for its market-leading cash ISA earlier this year also has an 'easy ISA' paying 0.1%. Oh, but if you've got £27,000 or more you'll get 0.3%. That's OK then.
The Dunfermline building society has a Soccersaver Cash ISA for Celtic fans, but scores an own goal with its 0.1% interest rate.
Meanwhile Barclays has announced that it will keep its market leading cash ISA (paying a healthy 3.1%) open to new customers until June 1st. That's the good news. The bad news is that this ISA won't accept transfers in from existing ISAs, it will only take new money. If you want to transfer your ISA to Barclays, you can transfer it to an account paying 0.1%. Hmmm. I'll get back to you on that one.
I appreciate that banks and building societies have to make a profit and that the Bank of England rates are low. But the grand game of snakes and ladders that cash ISA savers seem to have unwittingly signed up for isn't the answer. Someone's laughing all the way to the bank, but it's not the majority of cash ISA savers.
What was interesting, no, let me rephrase that, somewhat shocking, was how low some cash ISA rates were. Did you know that some ISA providers will take your money and give you a tax-free return of 0.10%. Yup, a tenth of one percent.
That means even if you paid in the current tax year's maximum amount of £5,100 you'd still only earn just over a fiver in interest after a year. That's enough for a fish and chip supper or a bottle of nail varnish, but it's not much to show for saving several thousand pounds for 12 months.
OK so let's name some names - Santander, which - rightly - got lots of publicity for its market-leading cash ISA earlier this year also has an 'easy ISA' paying 0.1%. Oh, but if you've got £27,000 or more you'll get 0.3%. That's OK then.
The Dunfermline building society has a Soccersaver Cash ISA for Celtic fans, but scores an own goal with its 0.1% interest rate.
Meanwhile Barclays has announced that it will keep its market leading cash ISA (paying a healthy 3.1%) open to new customers until June 1st. That's the good news. The bad news is that this ISA won't accept transfers in from existing ISAs, it will only take new money. If you want to transfer your ISA to Barclays, you can transfer it to an account paying 0.1%. Hmmm. I'll get back to you on that one.
I appreciate that banks and building societies have to make a profit and that the Bank of England rates are low. But the grand game of snakes and ladders that cash ISA savers seem to have unwittingly signed up for isn't the answer. Someone's laughing all the way to the bank, but it's not the majority of cash ISA savers.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
How fair is the Farepak settlement?
How would you feel if you'd saved £400 for Christmas but only received £60? Probably you'd be pretty angry, but that's what's happened to the 150,000 or so people who saved with the Christmas savings club Farepak.
It went bust over three years ago taking millions of pounds with it. I covered the Farepak story at the time when I was was a freelance reporter for BBC Breakfast and I spoke to someone who'd saved hundreds of pounds with Farepak and - as an agent - had encouraged her work colleagues to do the same. She was furious, not only because she'd lost out, but because she genuinely believed that she was helping her colleagues by encouraging them to save.
At the time, credit was easy but the people who saved with Christmas clubs like Farepak liked the idea of locking money away throughout the year. The reward for this prudence was knowing they'd have extra cash to spend at Christmas.
It's taken three years of work by the liquidators (whose fees come directly out of the money available to creditors) to come up with the settlement of 15 pence in the pound. Pretty poor, in my opinion. The only positive bit of news is the fact that it's brought the wait for compensation to an end.
The situation has improved in that Christmas clubs that are members of the Christmas Prepayment Association now have to pay customers' money into a trust account, so the cash is kept separate from the companies' own money. This is big step in the right direction. But when over 150,000 people are still down by 85% on money they saved in what they thought was a safe scheme, I don't think anyone can say enough has been done.
It went bust over three years ago taking millions of pounds with it. I covered the Farepak story at the time when I was was a freelance reporter for BBC Breakfast and I spoke to someone who'd saved hundreds of pounds with Farepak and - as an agent - had encouraged her work colleagues to do the same. She was furious, not only because she'd lost out, but because she genuinely believed that she was helping her colleagues by encouraging them to save.
At the time, credit was easy but the people who saved with Christmas clubs like Farepak liked the idea of locking money away throughout the year. The reward for this prudence was knowing they'd have extra cash to spend at Christmas.
It's taken three years of work by the liquidators (whose fees come directly out of the money available to creditors) to come up with the settlement of 15 pence in the pound. Pretty poor, in my opinion. The only positive bit of news is the fact that it's brought the wait for compensation to an end.
The situation has improved in that Christmas clubs that are members of the Christmas Prepayment Association now have to pay customers' money into a trust account, so the cash is kept separate from the companies' own money. This is big step in the right direction. But when over 150,000 people are still down by 85% on money they saved in what they thought was a safe scheme, I don't think anyone can say enough has been done.
Monday, 15 March 2010
Credit card companies bought into line...kind of.
Credit card companies have been coming under increasing pressure to clean up their act over the last year or so, and finally it seems that change is on the way. OK, so it won't happen overnight (as the card companies have until the end of the year to make the changes) but it should mean a better deal for many card customers.
There are five major changes, one of which will force card companies to give customers 60 days' notice that they're going to raise their rates as well as the right to reject the rate rise. Under current rules, we're only given 30 days' warning. It could mean that millions of people are better off. Last year credit card companies raised the rates on over 6 million cards and it's not clear that consumers knew they had the right to freeze their account and pay off the debt at the old rate. It seems very few people did this and - as most of us don't have money to chuck around - the assumption has to be that some weren't aware they could do this.
But this isn't the only change; one that I think is more interesting will mean that credit card companies have to use our payments to clear the most expensive debts first, a complete reversal of the present situation for the vast majority of credit cards. I did a report about this for TV a few years ago and most of the people I spoke to couldn't believe that card companies chose to maximise their profits by paying off the cheapest debt first.
It meant that if you transferred your balance to another card (say, one charging 0% interest), but then bought something using the same card when it charged 18% for purchases, your payments would be used to clear the 0% balance first and only then to pay off the purchases at 18%. Of course, this wasn't a problem if you cleared your credit card balance in full or if you didn't use a balancen transfer card for purchases. But the card providers' trade body the UK Cards Association says the changes will benefit around 25% of cardholders or around seven million people.
I'm all for making a profit (even the banks and credit card companies would be allowed to make money, if I ruled the world!). But I don't think that tricks and catches are the way to go about it. This clampdown on card companies can't come a moment too soon.
There are five major changes, one of which will force card companies to give customers 60 days' notice that they're going to raise their rates as well as the right to reject the rate rise. Under current rules, we're only given 30 days' warning. It could mean that millions of people are better off. Last year credit card companies raised the rates on over 6 million cards and it's not clear that consumers knew they had the right to freeze their account and pay off the debt at the old rate. It seems very few people did this and - as most of us don't have money to chuck around - the assumption has to be that some weren't aware they could do this.
But this isn't the only change; one that I think is more interesting will mean that credit card companies have to use our payments to clear the most expensive debts first, a complete reversal of the present situation for the vast majority of credit cards. I did a report about this for TV a few years ago and most of the people I spoke to couldn't believe that card companies chose to maximise their profits by paying off the cheapest debt first.
It meant that if you transferred your balance to another card (say, one charging 0% interest), but then bought something using the same card when it charged 18% for purchases, your payments would be used to clear the 0% balance first and only then to pay off the purchases at 18%. Of course, this wasn't a problem if you cleared your credit card balance in full or if you didn't use a balancen transfer card for purchases. But the card providers' trade body the UK Cards Association says the changes will benefit around 25% of cardholders or around seven million people.
I'm all for making a profit (even the banks and credit card companies would be allowed to make money, if I ruled the world!). But I don't think that tricks and catches are the way to go about it. This clampdown on card companies can't come a moment too soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)