We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
AXA 2001 and Aviva 2009 Reattribution Sales - Blatantly Unfair. All Missales?
agarnett
Posts: 1,301 Forumite
Those of you who have noticed the direction of my shared current lines of thought on pension providers will know, I have been reviewing my own plans/policies.
You will also note that my posts are not for the faint-hearted. They are not intended to titillate. They are serious and lengthy, often complex gripes about very complex wrongs.
Most people with contracts like mine will be none the wiser about whether their household name pension provider is ripping them off or not. Most IFAs are equally clueless on much of this stuff because it has rarely affected them personally and they aren't very interested in complexity unless someone pays them £200 an hour to read it.
I have been refreshing my mind on old pensions correspondence, and tidying up my files to help me make decisions about the new pension rules.
My three thickest lever arch files in my possession are for two of my Friends Life policies - the two With Profits contracts I have, and a third thick one too for my Aviva Section 32 Buy Out policy, also With Profits.
Those who are interested in these things will realise that all three were targeted for reattribution bribes. Most of you won't even know what that means.
So I won't go into what that technical word 'reattribution' means, but suffice to say both Aviva and AXA approached thousands of policyholders like me and asked us to pay them by forgoing a serious part of the future performance of our plans in return for them giving us a little bit of cash in the hand and letting them transfer our plans away from the goldmines they had identified in their "back books". Except they never told us that it was a serious part of our plans they were after. They would have put barbed-wire up around the seriously valuable bits, with armed guards authorised to shoot on sight if they thought they could get away with it, but it was UK not South Africa, so they had to be a bit more subtle. They did once operate in South Africa, so it might be interesting to compare how they did things there! We are reading currently that Aviva have had to do things differently again in France - I don't think the French like shysters unless the shysters are French and doing it to us not them! But I digress - look up Aviva France guaranteed contracts or "Meet the Man who could own Aviva France" if interested.
The amount they offered to entice the transfers was actually derisory, but the way they presented it was a premeditated con-trick to make policyholders think that they were losing nothing by switching from a well established well performing fund to a new fund with the guts sucked out of it. That's because they described it more or less the other way round.
Nowadays, the government is claiming to be worried that customers like us need to take heavy advice about transferring out of well performing pension arrangements like DB schemes. It has been sufficiently worried for a while about poor advice from industry players who have transferred customers out of great schemes such as the NHS pension scheme, thereby costing the customer enormously through the loss of very valuable benefits whilst dumping them into some typical run of the mill "can go up as well as down scheme". Claims for missales in such cases have been easily upheld. No player would dare go near an NHS scheme member to even discuss a transfer now, let alone try it.
What's that got to do with AXA (now part of Friends Life) in 2001 and Aviva in 2009 you may ask?
Well it is a reminder - a reminder that obviously poor advice to switch from a well performing contract to a gutless one should be prosecuted heavily - tons of bricks should be brought down.
Yet that is what AXA and Aviva both did - switch thousands from a perfectly well performing contract to a gutless one. The Treasury Select Committee in 2008 criticised what AXA did and what Aviva were in the middle of doing (and Prudential too - but Prudential soon backed down and cancelled their plans). But Aviva didn't. They carried on. They couldn't resist the mini-depression to fund values caused by the 2008 crash and used it to reduce the amounts they were originally going to have to offer.
So Aviva continued with their master plan and thousands of their policyholders were persuaded to ditch and switch their well performing plans for ridiculously low cash incentives. My unswitched plans with each company are proof of it.
In both cases, the sell was a hard sell. Both AXA and Aviva hit their policyholders continuously with unbelievable amounts of bumpf, and they set deadlines for acceptance which they both extended by months or even a year if I recall correctly.
The documents they put through policyholder mailboxes were ridiculously complex and would never have been understood by an IFA. We should understand that IFAs are mere mortals, and that when a provider says to me "You will need to consult your Financial Advisor", I can put up a bloody good argument why I as a lay person interested in my own destiny and with a knowledge of the sort of shysters who dream up schemes like reattribution bribes, am a far better judge of what is being waved under my nose simply from its cover, the size of the type-face and how it is being waved than almost all IFAs I have ever come across.
The evidence that I am right and that IFAs were, shall we just say wrong-footed, is that I think 87% of Aviva's policyholders approached with the offer of a bribe accepted it, including it seems, the Trustees of Group Pension Schemes without the individual members even having a say in the matter.
My AXA file contains two separate technical prospectus documents which as I say, only an actuary could decipher. One is 110 pages and the other 59 pages of A4 close typed smallprint. I did not even attempt to decipher them, but I have long had the ability to spot a pig in a poke from the insurance industry. They were it. That was my protection - to an extent ...
In addition, there were several other letters over an 18 month period from AXA and at least three other multipage A4 documents, all giving me the hard sell and several times telling me I had a further extended opportunity to take part, and such guff ...
The Aviva one 8 years later, had learned some lessons from Aviva on how to pull it off. Same incomprehensible thick gobbledgook prospectus documents and even more frantic hard sell "Last Chance!" "Times Running Out Make your Choice Now!" and even a silly little cardboard gimmicky sliding thing "Helping You Decide" "Is a cash sum important to you now?" "Times Running Out - Vote Today!" with a large colour photograph of an hourglass almost emptied. (All the exclamation marks are there - that's how Aviva sold it - with exclamation marks!)
In Aviva's case the main prospectus was 45 pages of very close print plus another 28 pages from the Quango Queen Clare Spottiswoode, wheeled in to be fair, whose office was salaried by Aviva for however long it took (2½ years was it?) to act as the proverbial honest broker. She learned a lot, but her power and energy was er ... her next job? Plus we had the gimmicky flyers and constant letters and reminders - letters from Clare and from Aviva in the same envelope quite often!
All of it hard sell, and all of it clearly not a good deal at the time because Aviva were hiding the true value, and clearly not a good deal in hindsight because the mystery and infrequent bonus distributions for those of us still in the old funds are I believe astounding in magnitude compared to those that took bribes.in 2009.
Anyway, having finally read last night the Treasury Select Committee inquiry report about all this from 2008, which confirms it was all very questionable even as it was still happening, it suddenly dawned upon me this evening before dinner and a great movie that both companies had clearly treated their customers completely unfairly (breach of FSA core principles) and that what they were doing was deliberately selling a transfer to an inferior product going forward whilst making very strong suggestions that the old product was in no way a reliable performer.
That's misselling, pure and simple. Never mind the techno gobbledegook approved by actuaries and even by the High Courts. What a disgraceful abuse of the legal system. eh? Dream up a fraud and then take it to the High Court for approval ... wonderful!
But never mind that. Drag in all the lawyers and pros that you like to approve your techno-babble that says black might well be white, but at the end of the day, you still have to Treat Customers Fairly, and if black is black and white is white and you had advised the opposite then you are done bang to rights ... or should be.
Never mind that the customers who thought they were getting one of the financial services "windfalls" that abounded back in time, and took the bait. It matters not. Whether we were canny or whether we were gullible, we were missold to, and the barstewards should be made to pay.
Never mind approving their intended merger, the FCA should immediately freeze the accounts of these shysters and shut down the Life insurance and Pensions side of Aviva, and Friends Life. The pensions rule changes should be postponed for a year whilst this mess is sorted out. It should become an election issue.
Both AXA and Aviva whom we understand together have 16 million of us as policyholders, have been abusing policyholders quite deliberately from the board table and both are guilty of extreme misselling by virtue of their real intentions with their 2001 and 2009 Reattribution fiascos alone. Goodness knows what else they have been up to. If Barclays can stumble from unfair structured products to PPI to betting against small business interest rate swaps on loans to LIBOR rigging to FOREX rigging to Gold-fixing in a few short years, think what the others might have done.
And let them merge and dream up more of the same? They must think we are total fools.
FCA - what are you finally going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. Scared for your own pension prospects if you upset the markets again - just need to survive another couple of years or Treasury Select Committee questions to max out then cash out when the FCA gets morphed again soon into yet another guise, and take golden parachutes to sit under your favourite palm trees I guess ?
HMG what are you going to do about it? Nothing I guess, its the regulator's concern and an election is coming that needs some serious corporate funding ?
MSE, what are we going to do about it`? Still independent enough or does the comparison site earnings bit sorely test the MSE Editorial Code with something like this?
You will also note that my posts are not for the faint-hearted. They are not intended to titillate. They are serious and lengthy, often complex gripes about very complex wrongs.
Most people with contracts like mine will be none the wiser about whether their household name pension provider is ripping them off or not. Most IFAs are equally clueless on much of this stuff because it has rarely affected them personally and they aren't very interested in complexity unless someone pays them £200 an hour to read it.
I have been refreshing my mind on old pensions correspondence, and tidying up my files to help me make decisions about the new pension rules.
My three thickest lever arch files in my possession are for two of my Friends Life policies - the two With Profits contracts I have, and a third thick one too for my Aviva Section 32 Buy Out policy, also With Profits.
Those who are interested in these things will realise that all three were targeted for reattribution bribes. Most of you won't even know what that means.
So I won't go into what that technical word 'reattribution' means, but suffice to say both Aviva and AXA approached thousands of policyholders like me and asked us to pay them by forgoing a serious part of the future performance of our plans in return for them giving us a little bit of cash in the hand and letting them transfer our plans away from the goldmines they had identified in their "back books". Except they never told us that it was a serious part of our plans they were after. They would have put barbed-wire up around the seriously valuable bits, with armed guards authorised to shoot on sight if they thought they could get away with it, but it was UK not South Africa, so they had to be a bit more subtle. They did once operate in South Africa, so it might be interesting to compare how they did things there! We are reading currently that Aviva have had to do things differently again in France - I don't think the French like shysters unless the shysters are French and doing it to us not them! But I digress - look up Aviva France guaranteed contracts or "Meet the Man who could own Aviva France" if interested.
The amount they offered to entice the transfers was actually derisory, but the way they presented it was a premeditated con-trick to make policyholders think that they were losing nothing by switching from a well established well performing fund to a new fund with the guts sucked out of it. That's because they described it more or less the other way round.
Nowadays, the government is claiming to be worried that customers like us need to take heavy advice about transferring out of well performing pension arrangements like DB schemes. It has been sufficiently worried for a while about poor advice from industry players who have transferred customers out of great schemes such as the NHS pension scheme, thereby costing the customer enormously through the loss of very valuable benefits whilst dumping them into some typical run of the mill "can go up as well as down scheme". Claims for missales in such cases have been easily upheld. No player would dare go near an NHS scheme member to even discuss a transfer now, let alone try it.
What's that got to do with AXA (now part of Friends Life) in 2001 and Aviva in 2009 you may ask?
Well it is a reminder - a reminder that obviously poor advice to switch from a well performing contract to a gutless one should be prosecuted heavily - tons of bricks should be brought down.
Yet that is what AXA and Aviva both did - switch thousands from a perfectly well performing contract to a gutless one. The Treasury Select Committee in 2008 criticised what AXA did and what Aviva were in the middle of doing (and Prudential too - but Prudential soon backed down and cancelled their plans). But Aviva didn't. They carried on. They couldn't resist the mini-depression to fund values caused by the 2008 crash and used it to reduce the amounts they were originally going to have to offer.
So Aviva continued with their master plan and thousands of their policyholders were persuaded to ditch and switch their well performing plans for ridiculously low cash incentives. My unswitched plans with each company are proof of it.
In both cases, the sell was a hard sell. Both AXA and Aviva hit their policyholders continuously with unbelievable amounts of bumpf, and they set deadlines for acceptance which they both extended by months or even a year if I recall correctly.
The documents they put through policyholder mailboxes were ridiculously complex and would never have been understood by an IFA. We should understand that IFAs are mere mortals, and that when a provider says to me "You will need to consult your Financial Advisor", I can put up a bloody good argument why I as a lay person interested in my own destiny and with a knowledge of the sort of shysters who dream up schemes like reattribution bribes, am a far better judge of what is being waved under my nose simply from its cover, the size of the type-face and how it is being waved than almost all IFAs I have ever come across.
The evidence that I am right and that IFAs were, shall we just say wrong-footed, is that I think 87% of Aviva's policyholders approached with the offer of a bribe accepted it, including it seems, the Trustees of Group Pension Schemes without the individual members even having a say in the matter.
My AXA file contains two separate technical prospectus documents which as I say, only an actuary could decipher. One is 110 pages and the other 59 pages of A4 close typed smallprint. I did not even attempt to decipher them, but I have long had the ability to spot a pig in a poke from the insurance industry. They were it. That was my protection - to an extent ...
In addition, there were several other letters over an 18 month period from AXA and at least three other multipage A4 documents, all giving me the hard sell and several times telling me I had a further extended opportunity to take part, and such guff ...
The Aviva one 8 years later, had learned some lessons from Aviva on how to pull it off. Same incomprehensible thick gobbledgook prospectus documents and even more frantic hard sell "Last Chance!" "Times Running Out Make your Choice Now!" and even a silly little cardboard gimmicky sliding thing "Helping You Decide" "Is a cash sum important to you now?" "Times Running Out - Vote Today!" with a large colour photograph of an hourglass almost emptied. (All the exclamation marks are there - that's how Aviva sold it - with exclamation marks!)
In Aviva's case the main prospectus was 45 pages of very close print plus another 28 pages from the Quango Queen Clare Spottiswoode, wheeled in to be fair, whose office was salaried by Aviva for however long it took (2½ years was it?) to act as the proverbial honest broker. She learned a lot, but her power and energy was er ... her next job? Plus we had the gimmicky flyers and constant letters and reminders - letters from Clare and from Aviva in the same envelope quite often!
All of it hard sell, and all of it clearly not a good deal at the time because Aviva were hiding the true value, and clearly not a good deal in hindsight because the mystery and infrequent bonus distributions for those of us still in the old funds are I believe astounding in magnitude compared to those that took bribes.in 2009.
Anyway, having finally read last night the Treasury Select Committee inquiry report about all this from 2008, which confirms it was all very questionable even as it was still happening, it suddenly dawned upon me this evening before dinner and a great movie that both companies had clearly treated their customers completely unfairly (breach of FSA core principles) and that what they were doing was deliberately selling a transfer to an inferior product going forward whilst making very strong suggestions that the old product was in no way a reliable performer.
That's misselling, pure and simple. Never mind the techno gobbledegook approved by actuaries and even by the High Courts. What a disgraceful abuse of the legal system. eh? Dream up a fraud and then take it to the High Court for approval ... wonderful!
But never mind that. Drag in all the lawyers and pros that you like to approve your techno-babble that says black might well be white, but at the end of the day, you still have to Treat Customers Fairly, and if black is black and white is white and you had advised the opposite then you are done bang to rights ... or should be.
Never mind that the customers who thought they were getting one of the financial services "windfalls" that abounded back in time, and took the bait. It matters not. Whether we were canny or whether we were gullible, we were missold to, and the barstewards should be made to pay.
Never mind approving their intended merger, the FCA should immediately freeze the accounts of these shysters and shut down the Life insurance and Pensions side of Aviva, and Friends Life. The pensions rule changes should be postponed for a year whilst this mess is sorted out. It should become an election issue.
Both AXA and Aviva whom we understand together have 16 million of us as policyholders, have been abusing policyholders quite deliberately from the board table and both are guilty of extreme misselling by virtue of their real intentions with their 2001 and 2009 Reattribution fiascos alone. Goodness knows what else they have been up to. If Barclays can stumble from unfair structured products to PPI to betting against small business interest rate swaps on loans to LIBOR rigging to FOREX rigging to Gold-fixing in a few short years, think what the others might have done.
And let them merge and dream up more of the same? They must think we are total fools.
FCA - what are you finally going to do about it? Nothing I suppose. Scared for your own pension prospects if you upset the markets again - just need to survive another couple of years or Treasury Select Committee questions to max out then cash out when the FCA gets morphed again soon into yet another guise, and take golden parachutes to sit under your favourite palm trees I guess ?
HMG what are you going to do about it? Nothing I guess, its the regulator's concern and an election is coming that needs some serious corporate funding ?
MSE, what are we going to do about it`? Still independent enough or does the comparison site earnings bit sorely test the MSE Editorial Code with something like this?
0
Comments
-
agarnet ... is that Alf by any chance?
You do go on don't you. Most readers would have given up half way, but I plodded on to the bitter end, expecting some revolutionary solution to what I perceived as being an injustice you has suffered, but unfortunately .... nothing.
However, you do not apear to have taken the bait offered, so have not been disadvantaged?
If you or anyone else has a genuine 'gripe' and feels that they have been unjustly dealt with by their IFA in not advising you correctly, then they can do something about it. Make a Formal Complaint.
That will trigger some action and investigation to ensure their rights are protected. However, your entry on this forum seems to be a statement of events that has already been reported by many in the press for some time.
All consumers have to protect themselves if an injustice has taken place and there is a way to do that. Good luck
SamI'm a retired IFA who specialised for many years in Inheritance Tax, Wills and Trusts. I cannot offer advice now, but my comments here and on Legal Beagles as Sam101 are just meant to be helpful. Do ask questions from the Members who are here to help.0 -
Thank you for reading it, but clearly you weren't interested sufficiently to read the Treasury Select Committee Inquiry report in the link properly - there's a lot to read and that is exactly how the miscreants intended it. It is a smokescreen that has endured years already. But the bodies are beginning to get unearthed at the surface. I retained entitlement to certain bonuses or distributions (call it what you will) that most did not. Aviva and AXA have deliberately made them few and far between and are very cagey about when they will declare them and how they calculate them, or even what they are when they appear, but they cannot hide the size of these unusual bonuses, and they are most certainly are not to be treated as money for keeping my mouth shut.agarnetIf you have a genuine 'gripe' and feel that you have been unjustly dealt with by your IFA in not advising you correctly, then do something about it. Make a Formal Complaint.
That will trigger some action and investigation to ensure your rights are protected. However, your entry on this forum will not produce a solution for you. Only you can do this in the way that all consumers have to protect themselves if an injustice has taken place. Good luck
Sam
Neither did you realise that no IFA is involved, other than the fact hoards of them were aware of it at the time and no doubt condoned a good number of clients doing the diametrical opposite of what I did. What is worse perhaps, is that some IFAs advised Trustees of Group Schemes who then made unilateral decisions that were not in the interest of members.
Nor did you realise that my gripe is on behalf of thousands who were hoodwinked when I was, shall we say, less hoodwinked. And the press write what they understand. Their appetite for complexity is as reluctant as that of most of their audience!
But thanks again for giving it a go early in the morning
0 -
You are quite right, I did not look at the Select Committee Report, or anything else, but it still boils down to the fact that if a client has been disadvantaged by actions of an IFA, then a course of action is available.
As you did not 'bite' on the bait, you were obviously happy with your With Profits performance, which in earlier days were superb. There became a time when this was not so and many investors, including myself, moved away from With Profits funds.
It's good that you are trying to help others by making these posts, but your embelishments and assumptions don't help, when actual facts may well do so.
SamI'm a retired IFA who specialised for many years in Inheritance Tax, Wills and Trusts. I cannot offer advice now, but my comments here and on Legal Beagles as Sam101 are just meant to be helpful. Do ask questions from the Members who are here to help.0 -
Well again I thank you for your indulgence, but the problem is that so few realise the big picture. Why did you move away from With Profits ? It would not be because With Profits contracts were ever a bad idea.You are quite right, I did not look at the Select Committee Report, or anything else, but it still boils down to the fact that if a client has been disadvantaged by actions of an IFA, then a course of action is available.
As you did not 'bite' on the bait, you were obviously happy with your With Profits performance, which in earlier days were superb. There became a time when this was not so and many investors, including myself, moved away from With Profits funds.
It's good that you are trying to help others by making these posts, but your embelishments and assumptions don't help, when actual facts may well do so.
Sam
It is because they were deliberately targeted by the greedy boards of the companies controlling them. They decided they could get away with daylight robbery, and up until now, largely they have.
Regular unremovable bonuses which always lit the path to consistent performance "With Profits" were extinguished in favour of very secretive terminal or final bonuses. No one except insiders could then say who was getting what and who was being denied what and why. That is dishonest dealing.
So what facts do you suppose I am ignoring exactly? Remember I am still in three WP contracts - you took the industry hint and got out. I saw that I was being conned and told them to alter my contracts at their peril. I can plot facts with my very thick lever arch files of actual and continuing experience.
I even forced the industry to compensate me on my endowment shortfalls despite the last of the four policies I'd purchased for mortgage purposes being incepted pre-1988. And it was no small sum. How many ex WP investors have managed that? Very few I think - they didn't know where the bodies were buried - so how could they fight the arbitrary cut-offs to their claims ?
The industry doesn't like me much because they taught me too well in the old days when the watchword was integrity, and now they all want to do something else.
And again, my main target in trying to blow a whistle here is the providers themselves, not IFAs, although IFAs let it happen, just as FSA, the High Court and even parliament did too - all through blind ignorance and susceptibility to deliberate smokescreens.
But there is no excuse for letting it lie now the truth of scandal upon scandal upon scandal is so brightly lighting the trail back to the lairs of dyed in the wool crooks.0 -
Your first paragraph asks why I moved away. ( Forgive me, but the rest is you going on again about injustice).
I moved away when With Profits funds were going down. They were absolutely superb funds at one time, but when this changed, I moved to other funds to ensure the growth of my pension. Some of those unit trust funds has small holdings of With Profits, but I decided on the amount and mixed the rest.
I am pleased with my changes, which have out performed latter results of With Profits funds on their own, but each of us has to make their own mind up on investments.
If you are happy with your funds, then stay there.
SamI'm a retired IFA who specialised for many years in Inheritance Tax, Wills and Trusts. I cannot offer advice now, but my comments here and on Legal Beagles as Sam101 are just meant to be helpful. Do ask questions from the Members who are here to help.0 -
Well yer pays yer money, and I don't criticise you for moving away from WP - there were many different flavours of course. But one of mine has been apparently languishing around £35,000 for years, with no regular bonuses
I used to receive printed annual full details of the plan and bonuses
I now receive printed annual summaries of the "Fund Value":
2011 33,122
2012 ... not sure I received one - probably misfiled in my heaps of lever arch files!
2013 34,319
2014 received two, five months apart?? 34,951 and 35,208
2015 35,777
I bet you have done better right?0 -
Maybe our gentle, tolerant, SeniorSam knew what was coming next so didn't feed me the line
But here it is:
My £35,000 moribund WP pension policy that I so easily might have kicked into touch as Sam and so many others have done, right now comes with a 40% final bonus if I wish to transfer it !
Where was that referenced in the annual summaries I have been sent in recent years ?
Answer: it wasn't. My entitlement to it was hidden and still is unless I ask for it frequently to check that it is still there.
That's just plain sneaky - take a well performing contract and pretend it isn't so that when the policyholders desert what they have been led to believe is a sinking or permanently becalmed ship, they leave the gold behind deep in the hold, and the provider can then quietly sail away in the night with it :mad:0 -
http://www.aviva.co.uk/oldwithprofits/
If you were one who took the bribe just 5½ years ago, how do you like them apples now ?0 -
For some reason you seem to be spending a lot of time on this Forum moaning about the poor Financial decisions you've made in the past.
My suggestion to you is to try to put it all in the past and find a Hobby or something else to take your mind off it all.:money:0 -
My suggestion is you keep your eye on the bull, sonny.Aberdeenangarse wrote: »For some reason you seem to be spending a lot of time on this Forum moaning about the poor Financial decisions you've made in the past.
My suggestion to you is to try to put it all in the past and find a Hobby or something else to take your mind off it all.:money:
For some reason you seem to have the pitch, or perhaps the field you choose to snort around in, back to front:p
I tend not to make poor financial decisions. It is those who I deal with who might try to shortchange me that generally wish they had never heard of me.
Did you for even one moment consider that I might not actually be one of the 87% ?
I'm one of the 13% who saw right through the Aviva bribe and saw through a similar AXA (Friends Life*) bribe seven or eight years previously.
We, the 13%, are now scoring goals at the other end of the pitch. What are you and the 87% playing at ? Did you think it was all over ?
Even if you took the bribe and even if you've since cashed your policy in, you could all score big too if you get cracking on prosecuting a case of being missold to (the now proven short-changing/bribery that was all done by massive amounts of post urging things like "Last Chance" and "Further extended opportunity").
* http://www.aviva.com/welcome-friends/0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards