This is the second in my ad-hoc series reporting bad experiences I have encountered.
This relates to a recent stay in an Ibis hotel in London.
Attending a trade exhibition in London ExCel I needed accommodation close to the venue and my usual choice of hotel was fully booked. I therefore booked a nearby Ibis hotel. So far so good.
Upon arrival I checked in, and apart from reception being rather chaotic the check in process went well. I was asked for a swipe of my credit card for a guarantee of the payment of my bill and a figure was quoted which was about eighty percent of the total bill so I was happy with this. Fairly standard practice and one which had never caused me any problems before.
Whilst my wife and I were checking in to our room, a colleague who was down in reception overheard an argument between a guest trying to check in and the receptionist. The short story was that although they had made a reservation there was no room available for them and they were sent to another hotel in the chain. This scenario was repeated more than once so I am intrigued as to what the point of making a reservation is!
The room itself was clean and functional but clearly the focus was on reducing costs as guests were only provided with one towel each, nominally called a bath towel but rather smaller than any bath towel you would buy. No hand towel was provided. Toiletries were also limited with just a fixed liquid soap dispenser in the shower and a tiny bar of soap by the washbasin.
Going to the restaurant for dinner was interesting. They had a rather limited and exceedingly expensive (even for London) menu of average quality food. There was no draught beer at all and only a few of the bottled beers on the menu were available.. Suffice to say that on subsequent evenings we had a much better, much cheaper, meal in a hotel just a few yards away.
Breakfast was an all you can eat buffet. The quality of the food was better but the selection was somewhat limited, and if you wanted eggs for breakfast you had better like them scrambled as that was the only choice. The hash browns had a good flavour but due to the manner of serving they were soggy.
When retuning to the hotel for our third and final night we found that neither my keycard or my wife's would open the door to the room. This meant a trek back to reception (we were on a high floor) where the reaction of the receptionist suggested this was a common occurrence. They were reprogrammed and all was well.
With a mind to expediting check out the following day I also took this opportunity to settle my bill. There was some confusion over the correct amount but finally they got it right and charged my card accordingly.
I thought that was the end of it until two days later when I checked my credit card account on line. It was showing that I was exceeding my credit limit. Straight away I rang the card company for clarification as the online account made an allowance for pending transactions which were not yet detailed. They were able to tell me that in addition to the guarantee amount I had agreed to at check in a further guarantee charge had been applied the same day for the first night's stay - this equated to about thirty seven percent of the total bill so I had now got guarantee charges for almost twenty percent more than the total bill, still on my account, and also the actual payment of the bill which I would expect would have released the guarantee hold.
Calling the hotel they were apologetic but could offer no explanation. The guarantee charge was released some two working days after I had settled my bill in full. Clearly not acceptable.
I have now written to the hotel and will update this post if I get anything of note from them.
For now however my advice is clear - if using an Ibis hotel make sure it is very clear how much they are holding in guarantee against your credit card and make sure they release this promptly when you settle your bill.
For the record, Ibis is seen as a budget chain - however given that they were advertising room rates of £219 per night, room only, at one point during my stay you would expect a lot more than you receive!
Update !!
I received no reply to my letter to the hotel so I posted a review on TripAdvisor - it seems they do read that. The manager posted a comment asking me to email a copy of my letter to him, which I did. After acknowledging receipt I then heard nothing for a while.
I followed this up with another email direct to the manager asking for an update and received a response. He promised that changes were being made and also some financial compensation for myself. Although the compensation did take some time to arrive it did so eventually.
Whilst the manager has promised various changes, I will keep an interested eye on TripAdvisor to see if their feedback gets better or if people continue to raise the sorts of issues I had.
Watch this space!
Showing posts with label Rip Off Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rip Off Britain. Show all posts
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Royal Mail Woes
Yet another issue has persuaded me to write this item on the Royal Mail here in the UK.
Supposedly intended to distribute post around the country, over the years the services offered have declined and the standards to which they are delivered has declined even more.
There are proposals to sell off the Royal Mail to a private sector company and to my mind that cannot come soon enough. Sure, there are negatives to this as well as positives but at the moment it would seem that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Let us start with the delivery schedule. Once there were two deliveries a day to most areas. The first of these was often before nine in the morning, and the second being an afternoon delivery. The decline in posted matter meant that this was reduced to one delivery per day - quite reasonable.
The problem is that for many now the ony delivery can be very late in the day and effectively makes the first class delivery effectively a two day service. The Royal Mail have cottoned on to this as a money spinner by allowing payment to ensure a before nine delivery service. So we now have a service that is based on how much the recipient wishes to pay (remember the sender pays to send the item) This doesn't even work as intended - in my last employment the company was on an industrial estate with a number of other businesses. Fewer than half of these paid the premium - and my company chose not to - yet all received their mail before nine as the postman saw no point in visiting the same location twice in a day and so delivered all as if they had paid the extra.
My next gripe is with mis-delivery. I cannot be the only one who receives post that is not addressed to them, or their property. If I know where the post should go and it is close I then take it round myself - and I have neighbours who bring post for me that has been delivered to them in error (or the postman's haste). Sometimes however the post is for an address some way off or that I do not recognise - so my only option is to put it back in a post box in the hope that it gets there next time through the system. This does not help if you are expecting time critical post or your neighbours aren't as helpful.
Finally for this article (as there may be others) is the matter of so called 'Signed For' deliveries. The idea is that the letter or package should be signed for on receipt. This is intended to provide traceability and a more secure service. Maybe, but that is not how it works. Only last week I had a 'Signed For' item just put through my letterbox. I was at home at the time but the postman didn't knock, merely pushed it through the letterbox with all the other post.
In these instances, what is offered by the signed for service (remember this costs extra)? Nothing! If the sender were to track this all they would be able to determine is that it had been delivered somewhere. No signature would be available and not even the name of the person to whom it had been delivered. Yet this service is recommended by eBay and the like to protect senders.
I myself sent an item using the signed for service last week. If I trace now it tells me that it was delivered on the 6th January, and the sorting office it was delivered from. I ask for an electronic proof of delivery and am told, sorry - not available. To me that means it was just pushed through a letter box, somewhere. And if you refer above, it may not even be the one for the address I typed on the envelope.
Roll on the sale of the Royal Mail - maybe a private company can get it right!
Supposedly intended to distribute post around the country, over the years the services offered have declined and the standards to which they are delivered has declined even more.
There are proposals to sell off the Royal Mail to a private sector company and to my mind that cannot come soon enough. Sure, there are negatives to this as well as positives but at the moment it would seem that the positives outweigh the negatives.
Let us start with the delivery schedule. Once there were two deliveries a day to most areas. The first of these was often before nine in the morning, and the second being an afternoon delivery. The decline in posted matter meant that this was reduced to one delivery per day - quite reasonable.
The problem is that for many now the ony delivery can be very late in the day and effectively makes the first class delivery effectively a two day service. The Royal Mail have cottoned on to this as a money spinner by allowing payment to ensure a before nine delivery service. So we now have a service that is based on how much the recipient wishes to pay (remember the sender pays to send the item) This doesn't even work as intended - in my last employment the company was on an industrial estate with a number of other businesses. Fewer than half of these paid the premium - and my company chose not to - yet all received their mail before nine as the postman saw no point in visiting the same location twice in a day and so delivered all as if they had paid the extra.
My next gripe is with mis-delivery. I cannot be the only one who receives post that is not addressed to them, or their property. If I know where the post should go and it is close I then take it round myself - and I have neighbours who bring post for me that has been delivered to them in error (or the postman's haste). Sometimes however the post is for an address some way off or that I do not recognise - so my only option is to put it back in a post box in the hope that it gets there next time through the system. This does not help if you are expecting time critical post or your neighbours aren't as helpful.
Finally for this article (as there may be others) is the matter of so called 'Signed For' deliveries. The idea is that the letter or package should be signed for on receipt. This is intended to provide traceability and a more secure service. Maybe, but that is not how it works. Only last week I had a 'Signed For' item just put through my letterbox. I was at home at the time but the postman didn't knock, merely pushed it through the letterbox with all the other post.
In these instances, what is offered by the signed for service (remember this costs extra)? Nothing! If the sender were to track this all they would be able to determine is that it had been delivered somewhere. No signature would be available and not even the name of the person to whom it had been delivered. Yet this service is recommended by eBay and the like to protect senders.
I myself sent an item using the signed for service last week. If I trace now it tells me that it was delivered on the 6th January, and the sorting office it was delivered from. I ask for an electronic proof of delivery and am told, sorry - not available. To me that means it was just pushed through a letter box, somewhere. And if you refer above, it may not even be the one for the address I typed on the envelope.
Roll on the sale of the Royal Mail - maybe a private company can get it right!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Tobin Tax
The news today reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs the introduction of the so called Tobin Tax on financial transactions.
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Apart from the fact that I strongly believe that church and state should be totally separate, has he considered the implications of the tax?
I suggest he has not fully thought it through.
For starters, a tax on trading will be payable by the church on all the transactions it carries out in this field. Those managing the church investment portfolio will perhaps then look to trade in countries which are not subject to the same taxation, which may well be where many of the financial institutions from the City of London decide to relocate also.
Secondly, the proceeds are supposed to go to helping fund social projects and investments. We have all seen from the lottery that many so called good causes are anything but.
Finally, what will be the cost of administering all this. I remember in the days of CB radio, the government freely admitted that the cost of issuing and tracking licenses far outweighed the revenue earned from them - hence nowadays CBs are licence free. Someone somewhere has to pay for another group of bean counters to administer this.
You've guessed it. The taxpayer will pay but no one will really benefit!
Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?
In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's. Apparently he backs the protesters.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.
Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.
My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism. So perhaps they do want to target the church. We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.
I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.
What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way. What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation. Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).
So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking? It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.
Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.
When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church? Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.
I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting. When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things.
The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful.
The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes. Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved. So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.
The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000.
Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.
As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had. After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Annoying Sales Calls
Am I the only one who has noticed an increase in so called 'information' and 'survey' phone calls?
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Tired of being pestered by sales calls I signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) which companies based in the UK are supposed to check their phone number database against so they don't call numbers which are subscribed to the service.
Trouble is, companies are getting wise to this.
Some are employing call centres outside the UK which are not subject to the same rules - this is complying with the letter of the law so to speak but certainly not the spirit.
The other way round that is increasing is by claiming it is not a sales call, merely a survey to determine opinions or an information call. These types of call are not apparently restricted under TPS as a shirty call centre agent told me last night.
In reality however, they are sales calls. For example, I had one purporting to ask me about my views on personal and home security. Before partaking in the call I pressed the agent and they did admit that as most people would admit to being concerned about say being burgled, the call would then go on to how they, an alarm company, could help you. Even after I advised the agent that I had an alarm with which I was very satisfied they still tried to sell me their product, claiming a number of ways in which it was better than what I already had (in their opinion).
Last night the call was on the subject of mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance on loans and credit cards - purportedly an information call but what these people do not seem to realise is that we are wise to it. If it was purely an information call and they would earn nothing from it, then why would they run up phone bills and pay agents wages - I cannot see these companies being truly altruistic.
Despite saying that I had not had PPI (white lie but no worse than theirs) and that I was not interested in the service or 'information' they persisted. Doesn't that sound like they have sales targets to achieve?
I think in future I should follow the approach demonstrated in this YouTube video - it may not terminate the call any quicker but you may feel better. Substitute No for Yes if you wish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BCEPMGggU&feature=related
Monday, October 10, 2011
Pressure Selling
I have just received a replacement credit card for one that is expiring.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
As is standard nowadays you must activate the card in order to confirm it's safe receipt. I am all for that and it should hopefully reduce fraud a little.
What I do object to however is the fact that with many card issuers they delegate the task of handling these calls to one of the 'Credit Card Protection' companies. They activate the card for you and then launch into the sales pitch about how many calls they take each day from people who have lost their cards or had them stolen.
Without pausing for breath they then go on to say that they will send you a registration form for their product to provide protection against all these things such as loss of cards, loss of passport, loss of mobile phone, loss of cash, loss of house or car keys, and also the theft of any of these items. They say that one phone call will enable you to ensure that all your providers are notified.
I thought the government had already given one of these companies a reprimand for this type of selling but clearly it continues.
What they omit to mention is that many people have home insurance which covers against some or all of these. More importantly they forget to tell you (and it is in the small print but boy is it small) is that you are only covered for the other items IF your credit cards are stolen or lost in the same incident. Even then there are some pretty strict rules regarding reporting the loss or theft and then there are a number of organisations (and I believe the mobile phone companies are amongst these) who will only take the call from the owner and not a third party. Many more require you to confirm in writing yourself. So what are these companies offering - a handsome profit for themselves.
It is time banks and credit card companies got back to being suppliers of the service we want and not marketing gateways for many others.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Sales Truths
Isn't it amazing how much difference there is between what a sales person offers and what you actually get?
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
My most recent example is with a well known company called BT, you may have heard of them. In late August this year I received a phone call from BT about their broadband offerings. Apparently I could switch my broadband supplier to them immediately and sign up for BT Total Broadband, or if I signed up for BT Infinity I could have the high speed of their new fibre system but would have to wait until 1st October for this.
Knowing people who have been lucky enough to get BT Infinity and the speeds they report, I was excited. Fortunately however I did not contact my existing broadband supplier to start the switch over process at any point.
The sales person who called was very keen that I sign up there and then, I wouldn't be receiving another call when BT Infinity was available. I enquired and was told that whilst I could wait until I was ready to switch, the 'wonderful offer' would have expired so I would have to take on the standard contract terms - a risk I was prepared to take.
As I say, I am glad I didn't sign up then, because although I have seen the installation of new BT cabinets in the local area and engineers connecting them to the existing cabinets, when I check on availability ( I was told available from 1st October 2011 ) I find that BT Infinity is NOT in my area and is presently expected to be available from 31st December 2011. Somewhat of a discrepancy!
What would have happened if I had contacted my existing supplier to terminate the contract ( which you have to do to get the MAC code for the new supplier ) - I would have been cut off without any broadband.
I would then have had to resort to my 3G dongle - which only offers about 1.5 meg and of course costs a fortune if I exceed my monthly data limit.
It is another case of buyer beware - it is not always a good idea to sign up to 'special offers' by phone even if they are from a supposedly reputable company!
As an example of a previous instance try this - I once worked for a company implementing an Oracle system. In 1997 when the salesman made his pitch he was specifically asked about a particular feature and confidently said this was available in the current release of the day.
After installation it was necessary to place a support call with Oracle to ask how to configure it, only to be told it was NOT available but may be in the next release.
I understand from my former colleagues that even now in 2011 it is still NOT available, and I think even the promise of a future release has been dropped!
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Tobin Tax
There are reports in the news that the EU wants to introduce a so called 'Tobin Tax', named after the economist who originally proposed it. Some also label it the Robin Hood tax in that in theory it takes from the rich and gives to the poor.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Sweden tried a version of this in 1984 but dropped it in 1991 as a disasterous experiment. It reduced share prices when implemented and decimated trading. After it's abolition, the trading market recovered.
So why do the EU want to implement it now? Simple, seventy percent of the financial services transactions in Europe take place in London which would therefore bear the brunt of the tax. The proposal comes not from the UK but from Germany and France. It would have far less effect in their countries and rather than going to help the poor and needy as the Robin Hood name would suggest the monies will go into a EU fund to support the Euro (of which the UK is not a part).
If the tax is not implemented across all the major world markets, traders will move to the markets which are not taxed. This would mean a massive exodus from London to other centres such as Hong Kong and New York. The major financial institutions are already global so it would be relatively painless for them to move, indeed I believe HSBC had already threatened to do so before the tax was proposed in the EU.
This country is not in the Euro, at present would not stand to benefit from being so, and is not responsible for the financial struggles of those that are. We have already bailed out Euro Zone countries with money we don't have and it is time we vetoed any further attacks on UK finances.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Supermarket Green Trickery Part Two
Previously in this blog I have discussed how supermarkets use environmental claims to enhance their image whilst in fact what they are doing benefits the supermarket more than the environment and also gives them a nice image with prospective customers.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
I have downloaded a policy document from one such supermarket and would like here to address a number of the points. Don't get me wrong, some of their actions do benefit others more than themselves, but these are mixed in with many that are far from altruistic.
I have written to various people within the organisation concerned but they typically respond either by re-stating the policy document or by claiming I don't understand it correctly (making no attempt to explain it!)
An amusing starting point however is their target of reducing CO2 emissions from business travel. So far they have INCREASED emissions by 33%!
There are a number of items related to energy production, the first of which suggests generating their own electricity from anaerobic digestion plants - they now find it won't work for them so are rewriting the objective - sounds like politicians to me. Secondly they talk about on site renewables to generate power - again too hard so the objective is to be revised.
Let's move on to transport, with a couple of interesting ones here. The first relates to increasing use of bio-diesel. This has been suspended as, surprise, the production of bio-diesel is not presently sustainable because of the destruction of rain forest or diversion of land from food production in order to grow the crops from which it is produced. The second is very interesting - converting delivery fleets to cleaner EURO IV and V standard engines by 2012. This is very easy to achieve as follows: All large transport fleets regularly replace their vehicles - typically a three or four year life. They will replace their vehicles with new ones from manufacturers. Legally new vehicles MUST comply with this legislation. Ergo the fleet will automatically be upgraded to these standards anyway.
Finally for now, a couple more amusing objectives:
The objective was to label all airfreighted food. This objective has been achieved. They proudly announce that sales have not been affected - hence no benefit to anyone or the environment - pointless.
A plan has been stated to install electric charging points at stores to enable people to use so called 'environmentally friendly' electric cars. They have over seven hundred stores in the UK so how many will get charging points? Five. Again pointless, but at least when they find that no one uses them there will have been little impact on the environment installing them.
More posts on this topic to come, if I can't get the company themselves to listen to me perhaps a larger audience looking at these claims can have more impact.
Which company? If you hadn't yet guessed, they claim there is no Plan B and all the documents from which I have derived their claims are freely available from their website.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Public Sector Waste
At a time of economic hardship for all, why is the Public Sector wasting so much money?
A recent report by MP's suggests that IT spending is far higher than it need be. True, the figure quoted of an average £3,500 per desktop PC which could be bought in the high street for £250 is like comparing apples with chalk - the higher figure allegedly includes sofware and support and infrastructure but even so I think the figure is excessive, and I speak from experience in an IT department supporting a large number of users with a wide variety of specialised hardware and software requirements..
Moving on to supplies, it appears that paper can be bought far more expensively than I buy it - how can anyone spend £73 on a box of paper, even if they take the ministerial Jaguar for a spin to go and buy it?
We then see a report of the websites that Whitehall civil servants like to visit - it seems that whilst we pay them to work they do a bit of online gaming, shopping, gambling and sometimes visit government websites.
I know from friends and relatives that this is not simply a London issue, outside the capital there are many reports of wasted spending. Organisations like the government and local and county councils ought to have the buying power to negotiate very good deals with supplier in view of the volume of business they represent - yet we still hear of items being purchased at a higher price than the high street because 'that is our approved supplier'
Recently there was a report of a council which purchased iPads for all the councillors despite the fact that many did not want them or subsequently use them. Supposedly this was to increase efficiency but if left unsused they cannot achieve this. Perhaps we should all be issued with a tablet/laptop of our choosing so we can be more efficient - makes just as much sense because it will ensure we can communicate with all the official bodies electronically!
In the private sector, buyers and managers who negotiated or approved these deals would at least be reprimanded, and if repeated it is likely they would find themselves looking for new employment. In the public sector it seems that this is not the case.
Some of these may seem like minor issues or slight overspend, but considering the size of the departments and councils involved it soon adds up. We are in massive defecit as a country - why not start by catching up on issues such as this and paring down the debt.
A recent report by MP's suggests that IT spending is far higher than it need be. True, the figure quoted of an average £3,500 per desktop PC which could be bought in the high street for £250 is like comparing apples with chalk - the higher figure allegedly includes sofware and support and infrastructure but even so I think the figure is excessive, and I speak from experience in an IT department supporting a large number of users with a wide variety of specialised hardware and software requirements..
Moving on to supplies, it appears that paper can be bought far more expensively than I buy it - how can anyone spend £73 on a box of paper, even if they take the ministerial Jaguar for a spin to go and buy it?
We then see a report of the websites that Whitehall civil servants like to visit - it seems that whilst we pay them to work they do a bit of online gaming, shopping, gambling and sometimes visit government websites.
I know from friends and relatives that this is not simply a London issue, outside the capital there are many reports of wasted spending. Organisations like the government and local and county councils ought to have the buying power to negotiate very good deals with supplier in view of the volume of business they represent - yet we still hear of items being purchased at a higher price than the high street because 'that is our approved supplier'
Recently there was a report of a council which purchased iPads for all the councillors despite the fact that many did not want them or subsequently use them. Supposedly this was to increase efficiency but if left unsused they cannot achieve this. Perhaps we should all be issued with a tablet/laptop of our choosing so we can be more efficient - makes just as much sense because it will ensure we can communicate with all the official bodies electronically!
In the private sector, buyers and managers who negotiated or approved these deals would at least be reprimanded, and if repeated it is likely they would find themselves looking for new employment. In the public sector it seems that this is not the case.
Some of these may seem like minor issues or slight overspend, but considering the size of the departments and councils involved it soon adds up. We are in massive defecit as a country - why not start by catching up on issues such as this and paring down the debt.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Rip Off Britain
There was an article in the paper yesterday about a survey, by the Post Office, on how costs of various items we would buy abroad on holiday have risen.
In this instance the cost in 2007 was compared with the cost now and indeed prices have risen.
What is not included in the survey results shown however is the price rise in the same items for the same period in the UK and indeed how these prices compare with the prices abroad.
I believe that if this were to be done then we would see a totally different picture which would suggest our best bet is to holiday abroad. For example I enjoy Spain as a holiday destination - Coffee at £1.13 a cup and £1.89 for a beer - oh how I wish I could get these prices on a holiday in the UK. And as for a meal for two at £23.58, well even if I go to the local pizza restaurant and take advantage of their offers I am doing well to get this price!
They also selectively show the countries to make a point. Many countries will be much cheaper than this.
Finally, I got riled the last time this type of comparison was done. The example then quoted was headlined by a ticket for the Eiffel Tower. I compared this with Blackpool Tower and found Paris to be about 10% cheaper and for a much better experience, having visited both Paris and Blackpool!
Why do we holiday in this country? I will check this years holiday cost very carefully before deciding where to book next year!
In this instance the cost in 2007 was compared with the cost now and indeed prices have risen.
What is not included in the survey results shown however is the price rise in the same items for the same period in the UK and indeed how these prices compare with the prices abroad.
I believe that if this were to be done then we would see a totally different picture which would suggest our best bet is to holiday abroad. For example I enjoy Spain as a holiday destination - Coffee at £1.13 a cup and £1.89 for a beer - oh how I wish I could get these prices on a holiday in the UK. And as for a meal for two at £23.58, well even if I go to the local pizza restaurant and take advantage of their offers I am doing well to get this price!
They also selectively show the countries to make a point. Many countries will be much cheaper than this.
Finally, I got riled the last time this type of comparison was done. The example then quoted was headlined by a ticket for the Eiffel Tower. I compared this with Blackpool Tower and found Paris to be about 10% cheaper and for a much better experience, having visited both Paris and Blackpool!
Why do we holiday in this country? I will check this years holiday cost very carefully before deciding where to book next year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)