This week...
More austerity to come
Regarding your article ‘Sunak warns of “severe recession like no other”’ (May 19).
This is just the start of the softening up process.
If you thought the last lot of austerity measures were tough, just wait until the chancellor of the exchequer launches the new lot.
Tax rises will be the side dish to add to our woes, and the chancellor didn’t even mention the potential damage from Brexit after January if we do not get a decent deal.
It would not surprise me if HS2 is scrapped and much of this ecology and global warming stuff is put on the back burner (electric car charging points, grants for thermally efficient houses, green boilers etc).
When times are tough, luxuries get dumped first.
Harry Katz
HA7 consulting
Helping bogus claims
Regarding your article ‘CMCs given green light to sign forms for clients’ (May 18).
Last week, the Financial Services Compensation Service confirmed it would accept application forms signed by claims management companies on behalf of vulnerable and elderly clients during the coronavirus lockdown.
But the FSCS made it clear the form must also be accompanied by written confirmation from the CMC that the client has “read and understood the terms” of the completed form and has given their consent for it to be submitted and signed on their behalf.
How to make it easier for CMCs to submit bogus claims – unbelievable.
Name and address supplied
Individual impact
I am writing in response to your article on IR35 and the failure of the proposed amendment by David Davis (‘IR35 reform gets green light for April 2021’, May 20).
While a great article, it did not pick up on a key point about the unfairness of the change if implemented.
If the change is implemented a contractor doing exactly the same job as a permanent person sitting next to them will earn less (contractors are not entitled to sick pay and holiday pay) and have less employment security because most contractors can be terminated on one to four weeks notice with no reason given.
This is not fair and completely contradicts HM Revenue & Customs’ point about fairness and tax.
Additionally, a lot of contractors have breaks between contracts because new roles are not available and they have to fund this themselves because unemployment benefits cannot be claimed.
This point needs to be made so it’s clear what the impact is on individuals, not just companies.
David Brown
Robbed by the govt
I recently reread your Waspi article ‘Waspi women call for state pension access’ (Apr 21).
I am one of those women affected by the changes.
Like many others I am sure, I have the feeling of being robbed.
To say we were being given equality by having our pensions taken away was cruel in the least.
I also think the court case was on entirely the wrong premise. The whole thing could have been framed very differently.
It was just a good idea to save a chunk of money for the government and my age group of women was an easy target.
Each woman affected will have her own story of how it has impacted her life and that of her family.
Probably only those who never had families or were married to men with good pensions will not have been severely impacted, or maybe they were too.
For myself, I had to take a voluntary redundancy from work following a stroke and would only have had three years to cope on my £550 a month occupational pension.
As it is, I now still have a further four years on that meagre income.
I cannot claim any benefits as I still have half of my pension lump sum left and it’s going down fast.
What was supposed to support me in retirement will be gone by the time I reach the new retirement age.
I will lose my house as, following divorce, I had to remortgage to keep it and planned to pay the mortgage off into retirement.
I can only pay interest. I cannot change it or extend it as I do not have enough income to qualify for any mortgage at all.
I was a victim of the endowment policy scam so I have no way of paying it off.
Yet, I still count myself among the relatively lucky ones even so. Some Waspi women have had to resort to sleeping in their cars.
Sue Frampton
Missing out on compensation
I would like to pass on feedback on your article ‘Mini-bond scandal drives £16m FSCS levy hike’ (May 21).
It appears that the FSCS is preparing to pay investors who have evidence of being given bad advice.
Some appear to have been given bad advice and at the very least misled by a group of people who have not yet come before the courts.
It seems to me that it would be very unfair for some investors to miss out just because their agent covered their tracks better.
As a secure Isa bondholder, I have had conversations but have no way of knowing if they were recorded or not, which means I am now waiting for a letter from the FSCS, not knowing if it will contain a cheque for several thousand pounds or nothing.
Can you imagine the stress involved in that?
Name and address supplied
