Improve Money Rules In 50 Words article discussion

dvs

Also disappointed that having a energy usage summary on your bill did not make it to the final list. If all energy companies were made to summarise your annual energy usage on bills, consumers could accurately compare prices with other energy companies.

MSE_Martin

dvs wrote: »

Also disappointed that having a energy usage summary on your bill did not make it to the final list. If all energy companies were made to summarise your annual energy usage on bills, consumers could accurately compare prices with other energy companies.

From memory I think this is in the new ofgem code which is why we left it out - but will need check on it.

mike2481632

Perhaps these could be the start of a drive to more inclusive government where common sense has a say. I hope you do make this more than a once off as would like to add some and especially around the insurance industry.

My fisrt suggestion would be to include third party car insurance in the fuel pump price so that we never have to have another victim of uninsured drivers. It also means even the high risk can get insurance at this basic level by default. Insurance industry would not like it but it could still be open to competition each year to provide and the insurers would then need to add value with the insurance top up most of us would take.

Mike

*MF*

Just for the record ...

One of the original suggestions, here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21197649&postcount=79

Has already happened - involving not only the FOS, but as this week's MSE news has confirmed, has also been followed through by the FSA, here:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2010/01/firms-with-excessive-complaints-to-be-named-and-shamed?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Do the Regulators read the posts on MSE? Hope they do!

scifiboy

Appliances already must display the Energy label provided by the manufacturer which gives it rating (A to G) and also the amount of energy it uses by Kw/h. Easy calculation -kw/h X tariff =cost..

segarrett

Fantastic ideas and each that would make a real difference, if you can get through several changes it will make a a major difference.

There's only one where I have an issue. I totally agree that charging extra for using a credit card is completely wrong - you have no choice but to pay by credit card.

However I usually travel with hand luggage and check on online for Ryanair, Easyjet etc. Those who have luggage and/or check in at the desk mean that extra staff are required and why should I pay for them? I'm quite happy to pay the extra if I do have to check in luggage. The charges have also meant that fewer and fewer people actually do need to check in, which speeds up the whole process.

[Deleted User]

Just one quick point on this, to correct one of the items in the list.

Someone suggested that banks should be forced to offer debts to the original debtor at the reduced rate before selling them on. Martin called this idea 'genius'.

Unfortunately, it misses the point of why debts are sold on. A large part of it is securitisation for efficiency reasons. Businesses routinely package up credit card debt (collateral debt obligation) and mortgages (CMBS) and sell them on because the cost of administering the debts as a whole takes away from their bottom line.

If lenders were forced to offer individual lenders the chance to buy the debts at a reduced rate then it creates more admin, not less, and renders the reason why they do it in the first place redundant. They sell them on in bulk to save money. Each individual loan remains profit-making, however.

So, although it sounds like a good idea, it will never happen because the person suggesting doesn't understand why lenders do it.

MSE_Martin

Deleted_User wrote: »

Just one quick point on this, to correct one of the items in the list.

Someone suggested that banks should be forced to offer debts to the original debtor at the reduced rate before selling them on. Martin called this idea 'genius'.

Unfortunately, it misses the point of why debts are sold on. A large part of it is securitisation for efficiency reasons. Businesses routinely package up credit card debt (collateral debt obligation) and mortgages (CMBS) and sell them on because the cost of administering the debts as a whole takes away from their bottom line.

If lenders were forced to offer individual lenders the chance to buy the debts at a reduced rate then it creates more admin, not less, and renders the reason why they do it in the first place redundant. They sell them on in bulk to save money. Each individual loan remains profit-making, however.

So, although it sounds like a good idea, it will never happen because the person suggesting doesn't understand why lenders do it.

That's understood - then again we had other suggestions that debt shouldn't be allowed to be sold on - as it causes a nightmare of problems. So for me your explanation doesn't really delete the idea

fatbelly

Most people pay rent 'per calendar month'.

But Housing Benefit is paid 'per four weeks'

So, even on full benefit, there is a shortfall in 11 months and then one month where two payments are made

Why can't HB just be calculated and paid 'per calendar month' ?

JDPower

sheenaf wrote: »

BUT -

Please do not fall into the media created shorthand of referring to the THREE main party leaders. Here in Scotland the main contending parties are Labour and the SNP, currently about 50/50 in the polls

I'm guessing its referring to the UK's three main parties, which is almost certainly correct - as far as I'm aware the SNP don't have much of a following in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. So they are the three main parties, just because one of the parties doesn't have a big presence in your part of the UK doesn't change that.