Posts tagged Family finances

Scottish Power trumps EDF with gas prices cut

Scottish Power has said it will reduce its gas prices by 8%, double the cut announced hours earlier by EDF

Scottish Power has become the latest company to reduce the price of its gas, doubling the cut made by rival EDF Energy just hours earlier.

The company’s 1.6 million gas customers will see the size of their gas bills fall by 8% – a typical £66 a year – from 31 March. EDF Energy also announced it would cut its prices, but the 4% reduction has been described as a “token gesture” by one expert.

EDF’s cut, which amounts to about £30 a year off a typical gas bill, will take effect from 26 March. It follows recent cuts from British Gas, E.ON, Scottish & Southern and npower of between 6% and 7%.

Mark Todd, director of price comparison website energyhelpline.com, said: “Although any cut is welcome, this is a token gesture by EDF and hardly worth the wait.”

Gareth Kloet, head of utilities at Confused.com, branded all the recent energy cuts a “disappointment” and “too little too late.”

“Energy suppliers are acting like a pack by all cutting by around the same amount, despite the fact that energy regulator Ofgem recently concluded they are making profits amounting to around £105 a year per energy customer,” he said.

“The fact that most of these companies, with the exception of British Gas, are delaying the reductions until the end of March is also poor. When they put prices up they do it with immediate effect.”

He added that some customers could now save up to £400 a year by switching to an online tariff and paying by direct debit, rather than paying by cash and cheque and staying on a company’s standard tariff. This is because the gap between the cheapest online tariff and the cheapest standard tariff has widened significantly over the past few months.

Scottish Power said today that customers could make further savings of up to £382 by paying by direct debit and managing their account online.

Estimation warning

Meanwhile, two out of five householders are overpaying for their gas and electricity and failing to ask for a refund, according to latest research by Gocompare.com.

Those that are overpaying are owed, on average, £124.34 by their energy supplier, while one in 10 is due as much as £500, it said.

Mark Greening, head of utilities at Gocompare.com, said: “You should never let your utility company estimate your energy usage – it is a sure-fire way to end up shelling out more than you really need to.

“It is not unusual to build up a credit during the summer, and following the bitterly cold winter we have experienced, any overpayments made could have helped soften the blow of the big bills that most of us have recently received.”

He continued: “However, if you find yourself in credit after your winter bills have been paid then make sure you ask for your money back – it is better to have the extra cash in your bank account than in your energy provider’s.”


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Political parties trade blows ahead of elderly social care talks

• Conservatives hit out at Labour and Lib Dem ‘death tax’
• Tory proposal would force elderly to sell homes, say critics

The political parties traded blows over the vexed issue of how to pay for care of the elderly in the run-up to the first debate between the three main health spokesmen today.

The conference was organised by Age UK, Britain’s largest charity representing older people, after weeks of angry exchanges between the parties and the collapse of consensus talks between Andy Burnham, the health secretary, and his opposite numbers, Andrew Lansley of the Conservatives and Norman Lamb of the Liberal Democrats.

The charity said recent polls showed six out of 10 people thought politicians were not working together adequately to improve the care and support for older people.

Yet the parties were quick to point out the inadequacies of each other’s proposals. Labour and the Lib Dems appear to favour a compulsory, comprehensive scheme to cover health costs, which the Tories have called a “death tax” with a £20,000 bill. The Conservatives, meanwhile, propose an insurance scheme, where the elderly would voluntarily pay £8,000 into a fund to cover the cost of care.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats say the Conservative plan would force many elderly people to sell their homes to fund care. Figures obtained by the Lib Dems show that 3.5m pensioner households do not have assets of £8,000 if their homes are excluded. This would leave two-thirds of households having to sell or release equity from their homes to pay for the private insurance scheme.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, described the proposal as a poll tax. “Many people on modest means will be wondering how the Tories could think it’s fair that they should pay the same amount for care as multimillionaires.”

The Tories hit back, accusing the Lib Dems of resorting to “smear tactics”, and said insurance fees would not be imposed on the poor. Wealthier pensioners could pay the premium by using their pension lump sum entitlement. “The average pension pot is worth around £25,000, indicating an average lump sum entitlement of around £6,250 which could fund the bulk of the joining fee,” said a Conservative spokesman.

The Tories say the only way for Labour to pay for its scheme is to impose a £20,000 “death tax”. Recent analysis shows the Treasury would raise more than £9bn a year at this level of taxation, which the Tories say is needed to cover the gap in funding. The spokesman said: “The government’s own green paper admits that a compulsory, state insurance scheme would mean people need to pay around £20,000. It’s not our figure, it’s theirs.”


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Is it worth spending money on expensive cookware?

A reader wonders if it paying more for pans means they will last longer

Every week a Guardian Money reader submits a question, and it’s up to you to help him or her out – a selection of the best answers will appear in Saturday’s paper.

This week’s question

Our big family goes through a cheap non-stick frying pan every year, and each time I buy another I wonder if it’s worth spending £80 on a decent one. If I do will it really last the 20 years they claim? I am told cast iron is better, as non-stick is bad for you, but do they work?

What are your thoughts?


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Is it worth spending money on expensive cookware?

A reader wonders if it paying more for pans means they will last longer

Every week a Guardian Money reader submits a question, and it’s up to you to help him or her out – a selection of the best answers will appear in Saturday’s paper.

This week’s question

Our big family goes through a cheap non-stick frying pan every year, and each time I buy another I wonder if it’s worth spending £80 on a decent one. If I do will it really last the 20 years they claim? I am told cast iron is better, as non-stick is bad for you, but do they work?

What are your thoughts?


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Cashpoints: House prices fall in February

• This week’s top news stories
• Virginia Wallis answers your homebuying questions
• How to improve your chances of getting a mortgage

This week’s top stories

House prices fell by 1.5% in February, figures from one of the UK’s largest lenders showed today, in a further sign of a slowdown in the housing market.

Grandparents in some of the UK’s most vulnerable families are risking hardship by taking time out of work to provide free childcare, a report claimed today.

Think you’ve been given the chance to sign up as an iPad tester via Facebook? No you haven’t – it’s a scam which actually signs you up to a premium rate mobile service, warns the security company Sophos.

• Do you have any feedback on any of these issues that you want to get off your chest? Email us at money.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Feature

Ten of the best … ways to improve your chances of getting a mortgage
The easy availability of mortgages was a key factor behind the credit crunch, and once the global banking system started to implode it was one of the first things to give. Lenders cracked down on loan-to-values and tightened up criteria, making it hard for all but the most angelic homebuyers and remortgagors to get a loan.

Things are improving, but lenders have warned that they expect to offer fewer mortgages this year than before the financial crisis. So how do you increase your chances of being one of the approved few? Read the article in full here

Ask the experts: Homebuying

Question of the week: “My husband and I are divorcing. How to do we alter the deeds of our houses to reflect as much?”

Our homebuying expert Virginia Wallis says: “What matters when changing the deeds is when you bought the houses. If a property was bought after 1 December 1990 it is almost certain to be registered at the Land Registry, since that was when land registration became compulsory for the whole of England and Wales …” Read the answer in full here

• Any questions? Email our panel of experts on financial concerns, consumer gripes, legal wrangles, debt worries and career-related problems at money.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Tools

Free Isa brochures
Don’t lose your tax-free savings allowance. The limit is currently £7,200 for the under-50s, or £10,200 if you are 50 or above (it rises to £10,200 for everyone from 6 April). This allowance must be used by 5 April or you will lose it. Browse these brochures to find the Isa that best suits you


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



This benefit cut will hit the poorest | Leslie Morphy

Housing benefit needs to be reformed, but cuts to local housing allowance will lead to more poverty, debt and homelessness

Monday’s news that councils face a 15% budget cut comes as no surprise. With a huge deficit, cuts in the near future are inevitable – whoever forms the next government. There are tough choices on the horizon – but the axe must not fall on the poorest.

Among the most vulnerable are people who rely on local housing allowance, a type of housing benefit for people living in the private sector, to pay the rent. Protecting these people from cuts is not just the right moral choice – it makes financial sense for us all.

We’ve just come to the end of a consultation period into housing benefit, of which Crisis was a part. The Department for Work and Pensions has published its findings and recommendations. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the government means to cut the £17bn annual rental bill. If you read the majority of newspaper headlines about benefit recipients, cuts to housing benefit make perfect sense. We are bombarded with stories of people choosing benefits as a “lifestyle choice” or of the very exceptional cases of families living in mansions in Mayfair on £1,000 a week.

Research that Crisis released on Monday tells a very different story. The vast majority of people on housing benefit are trapped in a cycle of unemployment and poverty, and are struggling to make ends meet.

Housing benefit is in desperate need of reform, but the changes proposed to the way the level of local housing allowance (LHA) is calculated would reduce benefit levels for everyone, which could be a disaster for already stretched recipients.

In a survey of housing advisers we conducted, 92% said that their clients already fall behind with their rent if faced with a shortfall, 55% said that claimants were getting into credit card and loan debt when their housing benefit was not covering the rent and a quarter of Crisis’s own clients said that such debt had directly contributed to them becoming homeless.

Most worryingly, 86% of housing advisers said that just a £5 cut in LHA would make paying the rent more difficult – 51% said it would make it far more difficult or impossible. Increased poverty, debt and even homelessness could overshadow any savings to be made through these cuts, as the cost to the state of a single person becoming homeless can be as high as £24,500 a year.

Moving people into work should be the best means of escaping poverty and homelessness and reducing the £17bn housing benefit bill. Yet 94% of housing advisers said claimants were worried about what would happen to their housing benefit if they do get a job – and rightly so. With rents so high and an excessive throttling of benefits when people move back into work – often low-paid employment with fluctuating hours – falling into rent arrears is a real and frightening possibility.

The government must ease the transition into employment and we welcome the proposals in the consultation to pay a new transition-into-work payment and to fix awards over a period for those facing fluctuating incomes. These changes need to come in as soon as possible with the maximum flexibility for claimants. We must also end the absurd situation of benefits recipients losing up to 85p in every £1 they earn when they move into work.

We need real and radical reform for people trapped in the housing benefit system. Not benefit reductions that could mean disaster for those already struggling to make ends meet.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Grandparents suffer to take on childcare

Poorer women who give up work to look after grandchildren are losing pay, report finds

Grandparents in some of the UK’s most vulnerable families are risking hardship by taking time out of work to provide free childcare, a report claimed today.

Research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the charity Grandparents Plus found that working-class grandmothers of working age on low incomes were more likely to have given up work or reduced their hours to care for grandchildren than those in wealthier families.

Working-class women were more likely to be young grandmothers, defined as under 50-years-old, than middle-class women, while their younger relatives were less likely to be able to afford formal childcare arrangements.

Giving up their own jobs to plug the childcare gap had a big impact on grandmothers’ income – nearly two-thirds of grandmothers who had given up work or reduced their hours to care for their grandchildren were managing on a very low household income.

The report showed that while across demographic groups, one in three families rely on grandparents to provide some kind of childcare on a weekly basis, among single-parent families that figure rises to between half and two-thirds. Children of these families are nearly twice as likely to experience economic hardship than the wider population.

It said more than half of families with a disabled child live in poverty or are in danger of sinking into it, and that grandparents in these families play a considerable role in providing emotional, practical and financial support, particularly during times of crisis.

It also found that ethnic minority households are most likely to have a grandparent, child and grandchild all living under the same roof, which it said often led to the expectation that grandparents would take on high levels of childcare.

The report, Protect, Support, Provide, was based on new data from the British Social Attitudes survey, together with a review of literature on the role of grandparents role in society.

The researchers said historically the contribution grandparents made to their grandchildren’s lives had been “underestimated and under-recorded”, but it was known that it varied widely from occasional childcare support through to substantial periods of regular childcare to enable parents to return to work.

They added: “The cosy (stereotypical) image of the benevolent, middle-class grandparent with the resources and time to ’spoil’ their grandchildren is familiar for some but it does not reflect the reality for many.”

The groups behind the report said the government’s aims of increasing the numbers of lone parents in work and increasing the employment rate of older people as they approach retirement were working in conflict with each other.

Kay Carberry, commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “The contribution of grandparents cannot be ignored. Without the free childcare they give, many parents would not be able to work. This is particularly important in low income families that may find it difficult to pay for childcare.”

Sam Smethers, chief executive of Grandparents Plus, said: “Until very recently we’ve seen a failure to consider the importance of grandparents in family life. This has made them invisible to government, so it’s not surprising that targets on child poverty and older people’s poverty are working against each other.

“It’s time the government recognised that grandparents provide the last line of defence between millions of children and that poverty line. They need recognition and better emotional, financial and practical support.”

To make life easier for grandparents, the groups are calling on the government to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees and to abolish the default retirement age.

They also want to work with Jobcentre Plus advisers to accommodate the needs of the wider family and ensure the forthcoming Child Poverty Commission considers the role of grandparents in their work.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Should I let my husband indulge his mid-life crisis?

A reader wonders what to do about her fortysomething husband’s desire to buy a motorbike

Every week a Guardian Money reader submits a question, and it’s up to you to help him or her out – a selection of the best answers will appear in Saturday’s paper.

This week’s question

My 45-year-old husband appears to be going though a mid-life crisis and is talking about getting a motorbike or a sports car. We can’t afford either, but I’m more concerned he’ll kill himself. Should I try to nip this in the bud, or is he beyond help? Someone suggested buying him a canoe – what have other desperate housewives done?

What are your thoughts?


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Cashpoints: Tax breaks for wealthy pension savers ’should end’

· Tax breaks for wealthy pension savers ’should end’
· Virginia Wallis answers your homebuying questions
· £200,000 to raise a child? Try these money-saving tips

This week’s top stories

Tax breaks for wealthy pension savers ’should end’
Generous tax breaks for wealthy pension savers should be slashed in the next budget to save the exchequer millions of pounds and simplify complex rules on retirement saving due next year, says an industry lobby group. More on pensions

Santander 3.5% cash Isa leads the market
Santander fired the first shot in this year’s Isa war today by launching a market-leading cash account with a guaranteed interest rate of 3.5% for a year. More on Isas

Mortgage approvals fall sharply in January, says BBA
The number of mortgages approved by British banks for house purchases dropped sharply in January, figures showed today, following a rush to buy properties before the stamp duty threshold increased at the end of last year. More on property

· Do you have any feedback on any of these issues that you want to get off your chest? Email us at money.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Feature

£200,000 to raise a child? Try these money-saving tips

The cost of raising a child has now topped £200,000, and according to friendly society LV=, and in the first year alone an average little one will set his or her parents back £9,152.

It is easy to see how costs can mount up. Baby clothes are temptingly cute, and splash out on a top-of-the-range buggy and you will be shelling out more than many pay for a car. But spending huge amounts of money on your first baby is avoidable, and spending the best part of £10,000 is certainly unnecessary…
Read the article in full here

Ask the experts

Question of the week:
“I’m 70 years old and want a mortgage for no more than 10 years, where should I go?”
Our homebuying expert Virginia Wallis says:
“You could try the Ecology building society, Halifax or the Nationwide…”
Read the answer in full here

· Any questions? Email our panel of experts on financial concerns, consumer gripes, legal wrangles, debt worries and career-related problems at money.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Tools

Best selling broadband deals
Search thousands of deals to find the best package in your area with our digital comparison service.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Should I use lump sum to pay off mortgage or save for children’s studies?

Q I am in my 50s, semi-retired, with £70,000 outstanding on my repayment mortgage which will be paid off by 2017 at the latest (I am currently overpaying). I also have two children of 15 and 13 who will be hoping to go to university.

I am in the fortunate position of being about to inherit £60k later this year and wondered if I should repay my mortgage with the lump sum and use what would have been mortgage repayment money to save for university fees or would it be better to simply invest £30k each for the children now in a trust fund for their education? Or maybe half and half? If I did pay off the mortgage, what kind of product should I invest in? All the ISAs I currently have for them have nearly halved in value and I am reluctant to use them.

My husband and I will be earning (hopefully) for the next four years at least to pay the mortgage off but after that we will go onto pensions which, while relatively generous (half salary), will not allow us to subsidise our children’s university education at that time. We need to save now. AT

A Because you are likely to be paying a higher rate of interest on your mortgage than on your savings, I would be tempted to use the £60,000 to help clear the loan and start building up a fund for your children.

Given the time scale involved, it is probably best to stick to low-risk investments where the value of the money you save will not fluctuate. So that means some form of cash savings. If you can commit to regular saving – which you should be able to do – you can earn pretty good rates of interest with the regular savings accounts from Nottingham, Principality, Stroud & Swindon and Buckinghamshire building societies. They pay 5%, 4.5%, 4.5% and 4.12% respectively. Alternatively, you could save in a cash ISA and/or the range of cash savings from National Savings & Investments.

It is also worth bearing in mind that when your children to go to university, paying their fees up front for them may not be the best thing to do. The fact that students can get heavily subsidised loans to pay their fees can mean that it is better to take the cheap loan to pay for fees. In addition, if you and your husband will be living on a much-reduced income by that children, the means test of parental income may mean that they qualify for a non-repayable grant. You can find out more in the student finance section of www.direct.gov.uk.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds