A frugal life is an easy life!

After the complete joke last week, breaking two cars and a van all in the same day, then the debacle of trying to tax sprog1's car (that is sat on the drive) and ended up costing me £46 on top of the actual price of a years road fund license, due to government ripping off, when the new insurance document fell through the door today, I thought my problems were easing..... How wrong I was!

As it stands, the van wont start as the 18 month old battery has died, so yesterday I got it jump started and let it tick over and warm itself up. In the hope that when I came to start it, once I have the tax for the sprog's car, it will start first time, I will move it from the front of the drive and then move sprog's newly taxed car on to the road and put the van on the drive in its place.
Our other car, the wonderfully crap, seat leon, that has been riddled with faults since we bought it a year ago, is now sat up the road, completely useless as it will only "turn over" but won't fire up, it is also getting full of water, as the kind men at seat dealership, when replacing the windscreen (that was broken and they tried to make us pay for) damaged the passenger side door seal, and it has gotten steadily worse. So worse has it got that it now leaks in at the slightest sign of rain.

So we are resigned to borrowing Dad's old fiesta to get to and from college and work.

Today the new insurance certificate came through, ahhhhhh at last, I can now tax the sprog's car and use this instead of borrowing Dad's car... wrong!
I got in the van to move it, started up fine, put it into gear.... it wouldn't move forward!
It will move back slowly, but no matter how I tried to rock it, it would not move one inch forward.
So now, not only do I have 3 vehicles that none of us can use, I also have a big repair bill coming for the van that thinks it is a shy horse facing beechers brook!

Fair to say, it has not been my week for motoring...

The supreme court's ruling today, that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) cannot investigate on overdraft fees charged to customers, if they are unfair or not, is yet another smack in the teeth for the people of the UK.

The immediate question it raises, is here we have a government body set up to judge on fairness (Fair trading bit of their name is a clue!) yet they are not allowed to rule on what is fair or is not.
You couldn't make this up... not allowed to judge what is fair, so what is the point of having the Office of Fair Trading?
The "final" decision, says the supreme court, but instructs the OFT that it can continue its case in other ways?

Another question is how can the House of Lords and the Court of appeal, both rule in favour of the OFT deciding if overdraft charges are fair or not, yet this new "supreme court" then suddenly decides against them and that is the end of the case?
Is this why the supreme court was set up?

All the self promoting commentators, such as Martin Lewis, who portray to all who will listen that they are "fighting for the people" - whilst at the same time making money off the back of these same people and promoting their own website that will help them to save money (by making money themselves) - now have egg on their faces!
I have heard Martin on various news bulletins, often quoting details of the action inaccurately (Today he says banks made £1.6 Billion from these charges - the figure is almost £2.7 Billion) - even Which are trying to get in on the act on the BBC.

One person who comes out of all this with great credit (no pun intended) is Stephen Hone and his forums over at penaltycharges.co.uk (Opens in a new window).

I have always found his forums accurate, completely free and on the whole, a more relaxed and helpful place, with no money making schemes behind it. (No I am no affiliated to it!)
I watched the news with interest when the ruling came out, Martin Lewis and Which - who had earlier been all over the news - were nowhere to be seen!
Stephen Hone on the otherhand, was giving interviews in a relaxed manner giving straight basic advice and not attempting to dramatise the any part of the story at all.

A few years ago, before we were pushed into doing everything "online" I always taxed cars at the post office. I would tax cars for family, friends, etc.
In the past few years in computer land, I have been taxing my car only, using the online system using the code provided by the DVLA.

Today, I attempted to tax sprog1's car, that has been sat on our drive for months as he is now a student and it is just sat there, a waste.

First call was the post office, who informed me that all would be fine, providing I had log book, valid MOT and my own insurance certificate.
Once there, I was flatly refused a tax disc, on the grounds that my insurance does not have the car's registration plate assigned to my insurance!
The lady at the post office admitted that, I can get in the car and drive it legally, but I cannot pay for a tax disc on it.
I then rang the DVLA, I got a lady on the phone who was obnoxious and impatient.
I cannot tax the vehicle as I don't have insurance on the vehicle was the official line - I clearly do have insurance to drive the car, as my insurance allows me to drive any vehicle up to 7.5 tonnes in the UK.
Then you can tax it I was told - the post office will not let me as the vehicle reg is not on my insurance certificate - this is correct I was told, so which one is it?

Then a statement from this lady that was truly bizarre:
If the post office allowed you to tax the vehicle, without having the car's registration  number assigned to your insurance certificate, it would appear that you are driving the car legally when you might not have any insurance and could be driving illegally!

As I pointed out to the DVLA, car insurance is insurance on the individual, not the vehicle - she agreed
I pointed out that I was insured to drive any vehicle on my insurance - she agreed
I pointed out that I could legally get in this car and drive it - she agreed
If I do not have insurance on any vehicle, I cannot tell the police that I am ok to drive it because the post office allowed me to tax the vehicle without an insurance policy on the car - she agreed

This car tax fiasco got worse, I was then asked if my car insurance was a "motor trader's insurance policy?" - it is not - then you have no option but to speak to your insurance company and have the registration of the vehicle added to your insurance documents.
Firstly, this discriminates against me, why can a motor trader tax a vehicle without the registration plate being assigned to their insurance and I cannot?
Secondly, no car insurance company will allow me to add a second car registration to my insurance, free of charge, plus the government gets insurance tax from any extra payments needed. The DVLA work for the government, so it is in the government's interest to make people pay more, which in turn pays the government more money in tax... the lady from the DVLA did not have an answer!

I finally got home, now with a headache and contacted my insurance company.
After going through this joke with them, they inform me that I cannot add the sprog's car on to my insurance details unless I am the registered owner of the vehicle!
I again told them I only require an insurance certificate, so that I can put a tax disc on the vehicle. They eventually conceded and agreed to insure the car and place the vehicle registration on my insurance, for their minimum of one month - which would cost me £46! (This includes insurance tax to the government!)

So to tax a car for £125, under the government's and DVLA's system, will cost me £171, which includes extra insurance and tax on this insurance, which must be done again in 12 months time, it will take more than a week as I have to wait for a new insurance certificate to be sent out.

This current system discriminates against myself, as those in the motor trade do not have this applied to them.
This system costs more to the individual who abides by the legal process.
This system takes more than a week to do something that used to take about 10 minutes at their local post office.

What is the point?

I received an email addressed to "Hi <space>" - which went on to promote themselves and their new section regarding discount codes. Ironically, they have a whole section for their users on "How to stop spam emails!"

After emails with Mr Williams (Moneysupermarket dot com), who has been kind enough to look in to why I have received emails not requested, it has been discovered that I once requested information using my email address, but this was over 4 years ago in the past.

Exactly why any name or registration is not being shown on the email, I am assured is being investigated. I am also assured that that it is not understood why it has been more than two years since any emails have been sent out to my email address.
I appreciate the quick response, which is why I am happy to adjust this post, removing my opinion that moneysupermarket dot com use "phishing" to gather email addresses to send out advertising emails.

Of course, the sooner we find out why no username is included in the emails I was sent, the better.
Thanks Ian.

For years we have had the benefits of banks thrust in our faces and seen them take over every aspect of our lives, isn't it time that cash, once again, became king?
"Convenience costs" - I am sure we would all agree, I don't believe that banks can any longer hold the claim that they are our financially frugal friend!

Security:
Wages require a bank account to have them paid into - but did you know, that according the law in England and Wales (Scotland has similar laws) you can request that your employer pays you in cash!
The wage packet was replaced by the wage slip, with money going into bank accounts rather than companies having to pay for security, on payday.
Branches of banks on the high street have become under staffed and many thousands have closed down altogether - yet Natwest are now sending out mobile branches - banks in vans - so how does this equate with the argument that bank transfers offer better security and ultimately save us all money?
Our information:
Data protection laws in the UK are there to protect us all, but seldom do they ever help an individual when banks are clearly at fault.
Months of waiting for reviews of an individual's case - toothless ombudsmen (put in place by the banks themselves) - useless regulations that are never applied unless it stops you from accessing your own account.
When your information is used against you to market goods and services, your information is stored on computers in foreign lands without any of our data protection, when your information is being accessed by call centre staff in countries on the other side of world, again without any data protection laws in place.
How much have you personally, ever been paid for your own banking habits and personal information? I haven't received a penny piece - yet banks (like other businesses) sell on our information for profit!
Convenience:
Direct debits - wonderful things they are, backed by a guarantee that is not worth the paper it is written on!
Banks even make profits from these.
You have a direct debit set up, say to pay for your gas bill every month. Your payments are spread over the year in monthly installments, you are paying in advance most of the year in effect giving your gas company an interest free loan (which is currently being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading) - they put up the monthly amount without 28 days notice in writing (which is the law) which your bank pays out.
You are charged upto £35 for a non payment of a direct debit, which costs the bank around £1 if a letter is sent out to your home, the banks have for years refused to prove that actual cost to them for this process, is the amount they charge the customer.
To get your money back, you spend ages on the telephone (part of the call price is paid to the bank) you may have to write a letter or two, more time and money for you to waste, even after all this you don't always get your money back.
Other bills might not be paid, you might be pushed into an overdraft due to their original error or charges, again this uses up more of your time and money, etc.

The benefits of using cash?
The more frugal people amongst us, are well aware that all is not simply "black and white."

If you buy something from a shop/store, and are asked for your home address, would you give it to the shop? Even when the staff says "it is for your receipt?"
Are you aware that the store then puts you on a mailing list and sends you junk mail, many companies then sell on their "customer lists" to other businesses, making profits on all our information.
Did you know that a till receipt is a contract of sale between a store and its customer? No address is ever needed, as a till receipt is a valid proof of purchase in law.
The issue I am trying to raise here, is that it is not just payments in cash that benefits you, it saves you from marketing in the future, paying in cash saves you in the longer term as well.
Without clubcards for example, Tesco's profit making model would be in tatters, as would every other company who offer these schemes.
Promoted to benefit the customer, giving token discounts (which are added on to prices around the store so they lose nothing) they not only encourage you to return to their store to buy their wares, but they also use this information to market products at you!
Tesco started out hiring a company to set up their clubcards, knowledge is power, so successful was the company, Tesco bought them for millions of pounds!
In the past year, a recession has hit everyone, yet supermarkets continue to make obsene profits as the cost of our staple foods goes through the roof. Tinned goods have shot up in price without reason, even those experts who work in the industries providing the goods cannot explain the price rises.
The supermarkets have stayed typically silent on the issue!

If you pay cash, stores cannot gather information that allows them to provide "footfall drivers" to entice you into their store - it messes their information processes up, which is great for the customer.
Don't use a clubcard or debit/credit card and pay cash, as this hurts the supermarkets/stores:

• they cannot link types of goods sold to areas of people
• they cannot estimate income levels for different surrounding areas
• they cannot link what goods are bought to various income levels
• they cannot target so called incentives to get you into their stores
• they cannot market adverts at your area via television
• they cannot sell your shopping habits/mailing lists on for profits

Look at the bigger picture and safeguard your local businesses.
Paying cash also has other benefits... in my area, a supermarket petrol station is one of the highest prices in the area, they used to be the lowest until they put the local petrol stations out of business, they charge 3p per litre more than their nearest petrol station, and the fuel comes off the same delivery!
Now as a result, we all pay more and have less choice!

When was the last time you negotiated a discount paying with a credit/debit card?
When was the last time a high street business or bank gave you a discount at the checkout?
If you pay cash at your local stores they are often far more competitive in price than you realise and almost always give you a discount.

If I pay my gas monthly in cash at our local garage, I do not have possible bank charges, I am supporting a petrol station (helping it stay in business) I don't have my information sold on, I don't have goods/services directly marketed at me, etc, etc.
For too long people have been pushed towards using banks for the convenience they provide, whilst the individual takes on all the responsibility for any mistakes that occur and risks paying out more money, all ends up.

It is time the people fought back, start using cash where ever you can, rip up their business models and information gathering and start fighting back!