Financial firms are responsible for data trading

The Daily Mail last week revealed that financial details were being sold for as little as 5p while medical details were being sold for less than 20p.

But where are the firms who are flogging these data to cold callers obtaining it?

One claimed the data had come from Sesame – an accusation Sesame vigorously denied. It examined the details sold to reporters and confirmed these did not match its records.

The information being traded includes precise details of mortgages, pension savings and other investments. It also covers medical records, some of which appear to be based on insurance claims.

So where is this level of detail coming from? The information can only be from financial companies, whether it is being sold or stolen.

Neither reflects well on the industry, suggesting that intimate data are either regarded as a tradable commodity or are not being properly protected. In some cases it appears that data are being held after they should have been deleted.

Firms are all too eager to collect our personal information these days. Boots Opticians attempted to gain details of my address and birthdate when I bought a pair of sunglasses.

We have become used to personal questions being slipped in among essential ones so we can no longer distinguish the questions we must answer from those that are merely prying.

Financial firms have long been collecting and sharing data as a means of cracking down on fraud. It can be difficult for customers to tick a box allowing sharing for money laundering and fraud checks but preventing it for other uses.

A line must now be drawn under the sharing of data. No financial firm should be allowed to pass on data for marketing or sales purposes.

A line must now be drawn under the sharing of data

That data have been revealed confidentially in order to buy a product or in the spirit of honesty when buying insurance. They should not be traded for profit.

By doing this firms have exposed their clients to the risk of fraud.

Of course, it may be that some of the data comes from other sources such as loyalty cards or those surveys that ping up on our computer screens with depressing regularity.

But where the financial community has been involved in the release of data it must now bear the responsibility for once again putting profit above moral behaviour.

______________________________________________________________________________

I worked my way up – for this?

Why has a Tory government decided to charge gains on pensions at twice the rate of gains on investment property?

I will admit it. I am personally affected by the new £1m lifetime pensions allowance.

I do not come from a privileged background. My dad was an RAF sergeant who became a welder and died when I was eight after being exposed to asbestos.

My mum scrubbed floors and worked nights in a care home to keep the family going because she was not prepared to “take hand-outs”.

Both firmly believed in education as the means of advancement for their children.

Now a chancellor with a family trust fund and a pension subsidised by taxpayers has deemed that I am too wealthy to get tax relief on my pension.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, £1m will buy an index-linked pension not much higher than the national average wage.

Why? Because I have saved out of my salary rather than frittering my money away and have occasionally picked some half-decent investments.

If I had opted for buy-to-let instead of pensions I would not be punished with a 55 per cent tax charge.

Instead I would get tax relief at my top rate on mortgage interest, tax relief on capital investments and tax relief on running costs.

And on capital gains I would face a maximum tax charge of 28 per cent after receiving an £11,100 annual allowance.

So when I can no longer invest in a pension I wonder what I will do with my money…

________________________________________________________________________________

Nutmeg spiced things up with fees exposés

Well done to Nutmeg for highlighting 20 different charges that investors can be exposed to.

From set-up charges, to inactivity and termination fees, investment firms really have scraped the barrel to milk their customers.

As Nutmeg chief executive Nick Hungerford says: “If people are putting their hard-earned money away somewhere, they should be able to see clearly what they are paying for, rather than have to navigate a maze of complicated terms and conditions.”