Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

zagubov

Spirit wrote: »

I would advise thinking about the running costs not just the initial outlay. My daughters first car was a FIAT. We paid £2000 or so for it in 2006 (when she was 18). It looked good,was low mileage and we had personalised plates so it was not obviously a W reg car.

It was reasonably reliable for most of the time she had it but the running costs were relatively high as it had a few garage trips, by 2011 it lived up to the Fix It Again Tomorrow reputation. It was not high mileage and I still think it looked good - it had just got to the end of its useful economic life mechanically. She p/x'd it - it was a token sum value but saved us the hassle of disposal.

Her current car is an I10. Bought second hand but still had 3 years of the warranty to run (they have 5 years from new). Not the most comfortable ride but neat, relatively cheap purchase cost, low cost Tax (£20 or £30 per annum), low insurance, good fuel economy and the warranty make it very cheap for her to run. This was a key consideration as she is a post grad student and had to finance her own running costs.

For her it was a more certain financial decision than a lower initial capital outlay and unpredictable/higher running expenses. We lent her £2500 towards it and she pays us back at £100 per month. Her other option was to buy outright a car for about £2-2500.

I would not usually advocate getting into debt - but a smallish loan repaid over a couple of years is not a bad thing if it is affordable, 'fixes your costs' and enables you to reach your job.

My first car was a Fiat 128. All my mates prided themselves on being able to keep old bangers going.

You couldn't imagine a more difficult car to work on. The hood hinged at the front instead of the back and somebody pointed out that Italy had no tradition of home maintenance compared with Britain.

Simple tasks needed a contortionist with mechanical skills. It was a cash cow for the local garage. Hope things have changed.

vivatifosi

My family in Qld are at the eye of the storm at the moment. Could be hit by 500mm of rain:(. We're expecting my cousin to be cut off from her elderly dad again.

hjd

LydiaJ wrote: »

Am I terribly naive? I thought the bank was supposed to check the signature. I assumed that the culprit in this case had got examples of the signature and done a convincing forgery. It can't be the responsibility of the person paying the cheque in to check the signature, surely, because you can send cheques by post, and the recipient hasn't the faintest idea what your signature ought to look like.

Banks don't even bother to check the signature on cheques unless they are over £5,000 (that limit could be slightly higher now).

BertieUK

hjd wrote: »

Banks don't even bother to check the signature on cheques unless they are over £5,000 (that limit could be slightly higher now).

I wonder how many people who read this will be very shocked to hear such news let this be a warning to others.

I have had such faith and trust in banks all of my adult life and there was a time that to receive a reference from my Bank Manager when I applied for a new job was considered a valuable asset. How those days have changed is for me quite frightening.:(

lostinrates

My business cheques are often made out to me personally. Bank has never even noticed that.

silvercar

LydiaJ wrote: »

Am I terribly naive? I thought the bank was supposed to check the signature. I assumed that the culprit in this case had got examples of the signature and done a convincing forgery. It can't be the responsibility of the person paying the cheque in to check the signature, surely, because you can send cheques by post, and the recipient hasn't the faintest idea what your signature ought to look like.

hjd wrote: »

Banks don't even bother to check the signature on cheques unless they are over £5,000 (that limit could be slightly higher now).

Highest cheque was for £4,800!

You pay a cheque received in the post into your account and are meant to wait for it to clear before releasing goods. Either it gets stopped or the bank clears it and then the bank loses out when it is found to be fraudulent. I guess they balance the amount of fraud against the cost of signature checking time. The signature couldn't be checked until it gets to the originating bank in any case.

zagubov

silvercar wrote: »

Highest cheque was for £4,800!

You pay a cheque received in the post into your account and are meant to wait for it to clear before releasing goods. Either it gets stopped or the bank clears it and then the bank loses out when it is found to be fraudulent. I guess they balance the amount of fraud against the cost of signature checking time. The signature couldn't be checked until it gets to the originating bank in any case.

This is the first time I've heard of a use for the to-me-mysterious five day clearing time for cheques.

I'd previously assumed it was a scam to cream interest off depositors money while pretending it was in a strange ownerless limbo.:cool:

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

My family in Qld are at the eye of the storm at the moment. Could be hit by 500mm of rain:(. We're expecting my cousin to be cut off from her elderly dad again.

Hell.

I saw this in the change rooms at work today and I was wondering but when I saw it was around Rockhampton/Mackay I assumed they would be fine. I thought your family were further south than that.

I'll do some digging.

silvercar

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Genius.

I'll have to remember that for next time my house looks suspiciously clean. :rotfl:

Re: cleaners, when we lived overseas, we had a full time domestic for the most part. You could leave anything out, cash, jewellery, electronics, whatever, and it would be absolutely fine.

Here in the UK, we've had cleaners steal, or attempt to steal, on a regular basis. We now only allow cleaners in the house when we're home to supervise.

Sad state of affairs.

Even when you are in the house, you can't be in the same room as the cleaner constantly. Thinking back we were home the whole time of the cleaners last visit.

So what should we hide away in the future?

How extreme do you need to be?

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

Even when you are in the house, you can't be in the same room as the cleaner constantly. Thinking back we were home the whole time of the cleaners last visit.

So what should we hide away in the future?

How extreme do you need to be?

I think a big filter is to do things properly, no cah in hand and meet your employer commitments.

I presume your cleaner was allowed to work here and was traceable, by dong things legitimately there is increased tracibility, but more importantly a sense of both fairness and ' no rubbish stood for'

Of course you may have done that.

My family have always given keys and a mixture of been there and not.