Save yourselves the trouble

The most recent was a lifelong friend, who had received an inheritance and will retire in a couple of years.

He was considering buying a second property but had not realised the tax implications.

Like many, he is very wary of the stock market. And that is part of the problem. Those with a decent sum who have felt able to invest in funds and shares have done very nicely over the past few years. But those who cannot afford this luxury have been battered.

Hence the gap between the savings rich and savings poor grows ever wider.

The gap between the savings rich and savings poor grows ever wider.

The government has done precious little to help. The latest round of quantitative easing combined with the halving of the base rate to 0.25 per cent will inflict further misery on those who struggled to save and now struggle even harder to live off the income of their savings.

It is all very well charging no tax on the first £1,000 of savings interest, but if your income is tiny in the first place it makes little difference.

And why is there a disparity between savings interest and dividend income on the £5,000 tax-free bracket?

It makes no sense at all that someone with an income of £40,000 a year can receive £5,000 of dividends without paying tax on top of £1,000 savings income, yet someone with an income of just over £17,000 a year will only receive £1,000 of savings interest tax-free.

Baroness Ros Altmann suggests there is a need for a new issue of savings bonds similar to those issued for pensioners from January to May last year, but this time available to all savers.

I would put a rider on that and exclude those earning more than £100,000 a year if possible.

Of course, the real problem is that no government has ever adopted a clear strategy with regard to savers and saving. Instead, we have had ad hoc initiatives designed to grab friendly headlines at minimum cost.

Now we are producing a generation that expects borrowing to be cheap and basic saving to produce no reward. It is an appalling message for the government and Bank of England to deliver.

Chancellor Phillip Hammond should look closely at how to redress this balance and redefine the message.

___________________________________________________________________________

Insurers getting bum steer from car hire policy

Last month a young lady drove into the side of my car while turning hers round outside my house.

Unhappy with the stylish dent in my passenger side I contacted my insurer, Admiral, which is dealing with the problem very efficiently.

But from this small experience I think I can save them and other insurers tens if not hundred of thousands of pounds.

My car was picked up 10 days ago and I was given a hire car. I have called the workshop to check progress and they are still waiting for parts from Toyota.

So for the past 10 days my perfectly drivable car has been sitting in a garage while Admiral (and it is Admiral because this is an internal claim) has been paying for a hire car.

I am guessing it will be several more days before I am reunited with my car.

Now, would it not be better if, on relatively minor shunts like this, that someone from the garage was sent to my house to assess what was needed and then my car was taken when the parts arrived?

This could save money not only for insurers but also for us punters who pay the premiums. Of course, it would be a bop on the nose for the vested interests of the car hire industry.

And, by the way, to anyone thinking of phoning, no I did not get whiplash from watching someone drive into my car while standing at my bedroom window – only a feeling of utter disbelief that someone who cannot turn a steering wheel properly should have passed their test.

________________________________________________________________________________

Alphabet soup of regulators

A few weeks ago, the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) suggested that the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should have their enforcement divisions broken off into a separate merged body.

I wanted to weep. Do we really want to return to an Alphabetti Spaghetti of regulators such as we had in the early 1990s were no one really understands who is responsible for what and where the boundaries are drawn – least of all the consumer.

No thanks, TSC. I would rather stick with the FCA and PRA – that is quite enough letters for one industry.

Tony Hazell writes for the Daily Mail’s Money Mail section. He can be contacted at t.hazell@gmail.com