Not sure the FT.com coverage of the emergency budget is up to much.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/896c4b1e-7df1-11df-b357-00144feabdc0.html

just has the paragraph

“George Osborne, presenting his first Budget as chancellor on Tuesday, slashed public expenditure in a bid to tackle Britain’s dire finances and kick start his goal of eliminating the structural deficit by the end of this parliament.”

repeated 13 times!  Not the sort of financial reporting I would normally expect from them. While the slashing of public expenditure to reduce the deficit may be an important story, I am not sure that is the best way to report it.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Saving money the easy way

While pet owners can book alternative means of travelling like the rest of us, they do face a different number of problems. For example, what alternative pet friendly travel methods are there out there? The number of countries you can reach is going to be limited. And, most importantly, how do you keep a ferret entertained on a 2 day car journey to the south of Spain?

But the big question everyone is asking is, where does insurance come into all of this? It’s something that the media have tried to cover over the last few days, but it’s something that really depends on the insurance company themselves and sadly there is not straight forward answer.

If you had taken out travel insurance prior to Eyjafjallajokull making international headlines you may be covered, but you will need to speak to your insurance provider to double check. While whether or not those who took out insurance prior to Eyjafjallajokull erupting is a bit of a grey area, airlines are certainly not covering any recent policies.

Your pet insurance policy isn’t going to prove to be a big help either – at least not with getting any money back. However, if you are still planning to go abroad – perhaps by an alternative means of transport – it will still provide you with overseas cover, if this is something that was in your original policy.

This is something more and more pet owners will be thinking about as the journey time which was once a quick flight to the continent has now become considerably longer and a lot more complications and pet-induced problems are likely to occur.

And what about volcano insurance? Well, this is probably only necessary if you live in Iceland although should it ever hit the States, one man is suitably covered.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Life insurance fears following the London bombings tragedy
2. The worried thoughts of a dinogroom
3. What to do if the flood comes to your house

Oh, how the mighty banks have fallen.

Since Goldman Sachs started around 80 years, the phrase ‘Long-term greedy’ which was used by Sidney Weinberg, who was managing partner during the 1930s through to the 1960s, has been a sort of guiding mantra.  This ‘Long-term greedy’ attitude helped the company grow from being a simple unknown brokerage to become the world’s most profitable and powerful financial institution.

While most people would not describe being greedy as a virtuous trait, according to a highly controversial comment last year by Goldman Sachs’ current chairman and chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, he believed the bank was doing ‘God’s work’.

The recent announcement by the America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the bank and one of its vice presidents, Fabrice Tourre, was being charged in relation to claims that investors were mislead over its collateralised debt obligations, a complex financial product sold by the bank during the boom years of the Noughties, must have been seen by him as some form of blaphemy.

According to the Motley Fool, “The watchdog alleges that the bank mis-stated and omitted key facts about the CDO, and failed to reveal that a major hedge fund had a hand in selecting the underlying portfolio of securities– even though Paulson & Co. had bet its value would fall by shorting the CDO.”

With the mantra, “No one ever got fired for hiring Goldman Sachs”  still persisting to ring true for many in the financial markets, it seems that the current claims and various other allegations over the past few years may have partly tarnished the wings of gods financial messenger, or as Rolling Stone magazine once described it, a “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.

The news of the SEC charging the bank with civil fraud has meant that the most profitable investment bank in the world saw its shares plunge by 12.5% to $160 over the weekend, taking off a whopping $12 billion from the market cap of the firm.

No related posts.

It seems as though things have moved on from simply taking a disused airplane and turning it into a house, as discussed in a previous post (See – Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?)

According to an article on the BBC, a company based in Swansea has developed a new material, made from recycled plastics and minerals, called Thermo Poly Rock (TPR), which is designed for use as a structural building product.

Affresol claims the patented low energy cold process converts the plastics into a very strong structural element which can be made into panels and then bolted together to form the load bearing frame of the house.  This can then be covered with some form of brick, block or stone cladding and the interior insulated and plastered as a standard house.

I could think of loads of puns to include in here about using refuse to build houses, but I think it is probably best if you make up your own.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it’s a fully equiped 3 bedroom des res

Bank charges could be set for another court battle after a ruling by a Glasgow Judge cleared the way for a proof hearing into determining whether bank charges are fair.

The Supreme Court verdict last November ruled the Office of Fair Trading could not assess bank charges under section 6 of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations, but suggested the banks might still have a case to answer under section 5 of the same act.

On Friday at Glasgow Sheriff Court, Sheriff Baird ruled against the Bank of Scotland in its attempts to prevent a customer amending her bank charges claim and fixed a full evidential hearing for the case.

Aided by solicitors from Govan Law Centre, the claimant succeeded in persuading the judge to allow a new challenge against the bank under regulation 5 of the UTCCR. What’s more, a request was also made asking the court to prohibit the bank from imposing future charges against the claimant under S140 of the Consumer Credit Act.

The proof hearing may result in the bank being forced to show that its charges were not excessive under the consumer credit act in a development which places the onus on the banks to prove charges are fair.

“Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November’s Supreme Court’s decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court,” said Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, representing the successful pursuer.

“Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise ‘free-if-in-credit banking’ by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA”.

“In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair – which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK – so we are incredibly optimistic”.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Bank charges verdict to be delivered next Wednesday
2. Great news for consumers on unfair bank charges
3. Tories label bank charges as unfair

Under new Financial Services Authority (FSA) rules, financial firms who collect an excessive amount of complaints against them are to be named and shamed reports MoneySavingExpert news.

Over a six month period companies who receive 500 or more complaints will, under the rules, have to publish the numbers of complaints twice a year so consumers can see which firms draw the most ire.

Under the rules, companies must state complaints numbers in a prominent position on their website including:

• How many complaints they have opened and closed
• The percentage closed within eight weeks
• The percentage of complaints upheld

The number of complaints will also be available on the FSA website. FSA rules differs from those of the Financial Ombudsman Service rules in that FSA numbers will include all complaints and not just those that have gone to the Ombudsman.

Sheila Nicoll, FSA conduct policy director, says: “For the first time, people will be able to see how many complaints particular firms receive and how they handle them.”

All affected firms must publish figures by 31 August 2010, with the FSA following in September.

No related posts.

The BBC report that the OFT has issued guidelines to lenders and borrowers about when their loans and other credit may, and may not be enforced. The guidelines come in the wake of OFT fears that some debtors may be misled into their ability to have debts written off.

The OFT draft guidance focuses on rules laid down by the Consumer Credit Act and draws on recent rulings by Judge Waksman at the High Court in Manchester. In his ruling the judge ruled that it was acceptable for lenders to produce reconstituted copies of original loan agreements which contain all the original information, apart from the few exceptions that the law allows (which include the signature, signature box and date of signature for the purposes of providing the borrower with information about their debts when challenged to provide a copy of an alleged debtor’s credit agreement.

The OFT believe some debtors are being misled into believing their credit agreement is unenforceable and can have debts legally written off if certain information is missing from the agreement. Debtors have typically sought to challenge their lenders to meet strict criteria as led out in the Consumer Credit Act. One such clause challenges lender to produce a ‘true copy’ of the loan agreement – ie. one that has been signed by the debtor. It is argued that if a signature, date or terms of credit aren’t present then the agreement could be deemed unlawful.

However, the judge also stated that the agreement should contain the borrower’s name and address at the time of signing, while in the case of an amended agreement the lender should provide copies of both the original and amended agreements.

While Cashzilla doesn’t advocate debt avoidance, it can’t help but feel there is a fatal flaw here in that ownership of debt can surely only be determined by the presence of a signature, otherwise it can only be implied? If a reconstituted credit agreement can be considered legal in absentia of a debtor’s true signature, what safeguards does the average person have in these times of identity theft against any enforcement action where a fraudulent credit agreement exists?

As usual the law will give the benefit of the doubt to the lender, leaving innocent peoples’ financial affairs in tatters and that’s wrong. Cashzilla wonders if the Judge and Office of Fair Trading have thought of the implications of giving Identity theft a green light?

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Shorn of the debt..responsibility
2. Too quick to judge?
3. UK consumers regaining control of runaway levels of personal debt

Well it seems as though the deal is going through after management announced they would support the Kraft proposal to takeover Cadbury. This is despite comments by Gordon Brown and, the trade union, Unite’s warning that Kraft plans at least 10,000 job cuts worldwide to slash costs and repay the cash it will need to borrow for the deal. This assertion is predicated on Kraft’s history when it bought Terry’s, another well-know British chocolate company, in 1993 and then closed its York factory shortly afterwards.

In advance of the take-over, a professor at Henley Business School also publicly expressed fears over Cadbury’s UK jobs, the possible ‘food security’ implications, as well as highlighting that, “the company has rejected fair trade as a model for their coffee and chocolate” and that this “may impact on the reputation of the UK in areas of strategic importance such as India and Africa.” If this is the case, then it may also significantly affect the highly respected Green& Black’s brand which Cadbury’s currently own.

Worries over the deal appear to be widespread, with few people actually welcoming the news.

The main fear of this old dinosaur though is whether the good old bar of Dairy Milk will end up tasting like American chocolate. Yeuch! I changed to munching on chocolate some time ago after I gave up eating tourists because it seemed that most of them were now American and I am not really a fan of fast food. Now it looks like I may have to find something else again.

No related posts.

This announcement comes after 350 years of cheque usage, however because of the use of credit, debit and contactless payment cards, alongside online shopping and banking, it seems that in recent years the cheque has fallen into a ‘terminal decline’.

The council stated that as long as the needs of the vulnerable and elderly are met, then, “The goal is to ensure that by 2018 there is no scenario where customers, individuals or businesses, still need to use a cheque.”

With an execution date decided for the cheque, and a rise in the use other forms of payment, it looks as though cash may be next to face the block. While the advent of a cashless society has been widely heralded for around 40 years it has not seemed possible until recently.  However through the successful widespread use of mobile phone sims for small contactless purchases in countries like South Korea, it may just be that cash may also finally be coming to an end.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Nokia to enter world of finance with Nokia Money
2. Praying for the death of credit card cheques
3. Don’t let the bank use the postal strike as an excuse to take your money

Wednesday week (25th November) will be D-Day for the banks in the long-running bank charges saga after it was announced earlier today that the Supreme Court will deliver their ruling on the legal battle according to MoneySavingExpert.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled that charges can be assessed for fairness by the OFT, and if the Supreme Court upholds that view then it could reopen the floodgates for consumer claims for compensation against their banks.

The hearing is scheduled to be handed down at 9.45am where the law lords will deliver their verdict into whether or not charges of around £39 each for exceeding overdraft limits or returning a direct debit are fair. The Supreme Court has already hinted that it thinks they are unjust and are widely expected to throw out the banks’ appeal.

Over one million claims are currently stuck in limbo and clogging up the legal system, thanks to a FSA waiver and prior to the litigation banks had already reimbursed consumers with more than £1 billion before claiming was suspended.

However, even if the Supreme Court does find in favour of the OFT there is little to prevent the banks challenging their findings and so continuing to drag the whole affair on for much longer. According to MSE, it would be hoped that political intervention after the verdict would prevent any further appeals, especially given the fact that some of the banks in question, including Lloyds TSB and HBoS are taxpayer-owned.

“I’ve had letters from Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg all effectively committing to that and MoneySavingExpert.com, with its 8 million users a month, will try and ensure they stick to their promise.” Martin Lewis, consumer champion and founder of MoneySavingExpert.com commented.

Related personalfinanosaurus posts:

1. Tories want bank charges compensation repaid ‘quickly and fairly’
2. Bank charges come back into legal spotlight following court ruling
3. Tories label bank charges as unfair