Money

Collapse in surveyor numbers may derail house sales

Sarah Coles — 2013-06-19T14:00:00+00:00

The number of surveyors trading in the UK collapsed during the financial crisis. Thousands have been lost to the profession, and there has been a critical slowdown in homebuyer's surveys.

Some buyers are having to wait up to three weeks, and as the market picks up there's a real risk this could derail house sales.

Collapse in numbers

The number of surveyors fell during the downturn. In many cases companies went out of business - especially where they focused on the sub-prime end of the market. Even among the companies that survived, as demand for mortgages fell, so valuers laid employees off.

At the same time, lenders squeezed the fees they paid to valuers, which left little room to invest in new staff and training. The experts disagree on how far the number of surveyors has fallen - with some claiming the level is around a quarter of what it was in 2007, while others claim around a half. E.Surv Chartered Surveyors told Money Marketing magazine that as many as 5,000 surveyors may have left the profession in that time.

Delays

As a result, there is already a significant increase in the length of time required to book homebuyer surveys. A year ago it was possible to book a survey just three days ahead. Now, according to London based mortgage broker, Springtide Capital, it takes an average of a week - and in some cases individuals have had to wait three weeks.

Mortgage Strategy magazine did a mystery shop of surveyors earlier this month and found a number of major practices in London had temporarily stopped taking business in some postcodes, while others were suggesting appointments more than a month away.

Increased demand

The collapse in the number of surveyors wasn't noticeable while mortgage approvals were at a record low. However, figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that the number of approvals for purchases has picked up, which is exposing the problem.

Henry Knight, Managing Director of Springtide Capital says: "As a broker, it is frustrating when approvals are delayed as a result of the length of time it is now taking to organise surveys... greater effort needs to be made on behalf of the whole industry to ensure that transaction times are shortened and the process is as efficient and stress free as possible."

Derailing sales

Coreco director Andrew Montlake told Mortgage Strategy this was undoubtedly derailing sales already. He says: "I have a client who needs to complete by the end of the month. It was instructed last week [week commencing 3 June] and it cannot go in until 3 July. You can't have that in London because people will lose properties."

Some surveyors are working longer hours to try to squeeze the work in. Recruiter Randstad has claimed that people working in property are fitting an average of 7.5 working days worth of work into every week.

There's a real risk that with this sort of work-rate, mistakes could be made, which could also derail the process. If, for example, a surveyor doesn't take the time to get a valuation right, they may value a property at less than the mortgage requires, and the mortgage will be refused.

Getting worse

And these problems are only going to get worse as the market recovers. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has reported that house sales rose to their highest level for more than three years in May, and 35% of surveyors said they expected to see more sales over the following three months. Peter Bolton King, global residential director at Rics, said: "There is still a very long way to go until we see a full scale recovery, but green shoots are beginning to sprout."

And when those shoots finally bear fruit we will see exactly what a bottleneck the valuation has become in the home buying process.

More stories

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ryanair spends £10bn on planes

Emma Sleight — 2013-06-19T13:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Holidays

Low-fares airline Ryanair has confirmed it would be buying around £10 billion-worth (11.6 billion euro) of new planes in a move that will create more than 3,000 jobs.

The no-frills Irish carrier said it would be taking 175 of Boeing's new 737-800 aircraft, which will be delivered over the period up to 2019.

First announced as a commitment in March, the now-firm order was finalised at the Paris Air Show on Wednesday.

The new planes will allow Ryanair to grow its fleet to more than 400 aircraft, serving more than 100 million passengers a year across Europe by 2019.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Accidents and illness to kill savings

Chris Wheal — 2013-06-19T13:06:00+00:00

Filed under: Savings & ISAs

Two fifths (40%) of Brits would rely on savings if they had an accident, yet many Brits don't have enough savings to see them through a single month with no income.

Mintel's research reveals more than one in five (22%) Brits claim to have no savings, one in ten (10%) less than £500 - and just under half (45%) have £2,000 or less.

Savings at risk

The research also highlights the top five ways the nation would finance a period of time out of work in the event of the main income earner being unable to work due to illness or accident for an extended period, these are:

Savings (40%)
State/benefits (30%)
Family/friends (24%)
Employer (12%)
Insurance cover (7% think they have insurance to protect them and 4% are definite they have insurance cover which would pay out in these circumstances).

Stephanie Absolom, senior financial service analyst said: "Some 30% of consumers believe that they would rely on the state for financial support if the main income earner in their home was unable to work as a result of an accident or illness.

"The recent upheaval in the welfare system may encourage consumers to reassess the extent to which they can rely on the state. It may also force some to take greater personal financial responsibility."

No trust in insurance

Today, just 3% of people own traditional income protection and just over a fifth (22%) own some type of income protection product -perhaps an accident policy.

Despite lack of provision for a prolonged period of absence due to sickness or accident, Mintel's research shows that 34% of consumers would not consider purchasing income protection under any circumstance and that 20% of people who currently don't own it have never considered why this is.

Some 42% of those without cover say that they don't own income protection because they can't afford it, meanwhile, some 19% of people would be more inclined to purchase income protection insurance if they could be given a premium discount reflecting their healthy living.

Unclear and unfair

"Consumers lack a thorough understanding of what income protection products offer, which is hampering growth in the market. Insurers need to simplify their product and work together in order to identify ways of educating people about income protection.

"They also need to rebuild trust that has been damaged as a result of the PPI scandal and a lack of transparency," adds Absolom.

Mintel's research revealed two thirds (66%) of those in work expressed concern about not being able to work due to health reasons, compared to just over a third (33%) who claimed no concerns whatsoever about finding themselves unable to work due to an accident, illness or serious health condition.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Fixer: Multi-car insurance policies

Jess Bown — 2013-06-19T13:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Motoring

Have you been left out of pocket due to poor service or sharp practice? Do you have a money problem that won't go away?

It can seem impossible to get a fair result when you are battling a financial issue alone. But never fear! The AOL Money Fixer is here to help.

Dear Fixer,
My daughter recently passed her driving test and my wife and I have decided to give her a little runaround for her 18th birthday - mainly to avoid her driving our more powerful cars!

I currently have separate insurance policies for my car and my wife's car, but am considering switching to a multi-car policy once my daughter gets her car to take advantage of the discounts on offer.

She is still in full-time education, so I will be paying her insurance this year at least.

Are there any disadvantages to multi-car policies and do I need to wait until I insure my daughter's car to take one out? Thank you in advance for your help.

T Donovan, Derbyshire

Dear Mr Donovan,
Multi-car insurance policies, which can generally be taken out for between two and five cars registered at the same address, work in the same way as standard insurance policies.

In most cases, the 12-month policy generally kicks in on the date that the insurance on the last car in the group is up for renewal, with short-term cover being provided for the other cars in the interim.

The big discounts available on multi-car insurance policies are the reason most people choose cover of this kind. Many insurers offer 10% off for every car you insure on the same policy.

However, the age and experience of the motorists covered by the policy will have a significant impact on the overall cost, as will the type of cars covered.

Given that your daughter has only just passed her test, you may therefore find that a multi-car insurance policy is not the cheapest option for everyone.

Before taking out cover of this kind, it is also sensible to check the terms and conditions of the no-claims discount in case all drivers are affected by one accident.

The Fixer

Whatever your financial problem, write to themoneyfixer@aim.com and The AOL Money Fixer will get on the case.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

BT chief executive joins Government

Press Association — 2013-06-19T12:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Career

BT chief executive Ian Livingston will join the Government as trade minister, David Cameron has announced.

The role is currently filled by former HSBC chairman Lord Green, who will stand down at the end of the year, the Prime Minister told the Commons.

Mr Cameron told MPs Mr Livingston would "bring huge talent to a vital national effort".

At Prime Minister's Questions Mr Cameron said: "At the end of the year Stephen Green, the former chair and chief executive of HSBC will be standing down as trade minister after doing a superb job refocusing the Government's efforts in key export markets.

"I can announce today that Ian Livingston, for the past five years chief executive of BT, one of Britain's most successful businesses, will take on this vital role. I believe he will bring huge talent to a vital national effort."

Mr Livingston, who will be made a peer in order to take up his ministerial role, said: "I am honoured to have been asked by the Prime Minister to take on the role of Minister for Trade and Investment, with a remit of helping the growth of British companies and the country's future economic success.

"It has been an incredibly hard decision to leave BT at such an exciting time. However, the opportunities ahead and the strength of the management team that Gavin will lead mean that the company is in a great position.

"I am immensely proud to have led this company over the last five years. We have made huge progress over the last few years but I know there is still so much more that BT can and will do."

Gavin Patterson will take over as chief executive of BT Group in September, the firm announced.

Mr Patterson has served as chief executive of BT Retail and as a BT board member since 2008, having joined the company as a senior executive four years prior to that.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

More families 'pack a nan' this summer

Sarah Coles — 2013-06-19T12:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Holidays

A quarter of grandparents have been on holiday with their extended family - including their grandchildren - and two fifths have paid for the break for the entire family.

So what is driving this trend, and is it fair, or are grandparents being exploited?

Pack a nan

Research by Saga has found that a quarter of grandparents have been away with their grandchildren over the last three years. Many are paying their own way on the trip, and a shocking two-fifths have paid for the entire family to go away.

With an average price of a family holiday hitting £1,964, this is a hugely generous move. Meanwhile, one in 14 over 50s have spent more than £5,000 on a luxury holiday for their family.

And as if it's not enough for the grandparents to foot the bill, many have to pick up childcare duties while they are away.

For the adult offspring, the advantages of the trend are simple: they can cut the cost of a trip by sharing it with their parents, and they have baby-sitting on tap. For the grandparents the trend is a mixed blessing.

Is this exploitation?

It raises some difficult questions. Retired grandparents are twice as likely to go on holiday with grandchildren as their working counterparts. Clearly they have more time to take a break - and still have time left over for a holiday by themselves.

However, arguably, on fixed pensions they are less likely to be able to comfortably afford to pay for a break for themselves - let alone their extended family. There's a chance they are using pension lump sums to cover luxury holidays, but they will pay the price for life with a lower pension income.

There's every chance they feel under pressure from their adult children to pay up and provide babysitting. They have spent their entire adult lives supporting their offspring, paying for their further education, bailing them out of credit problems, helping them buy a property and providing free childcare. Surely by the time they retire they shouldn't be expected to give any more.

Fair?

On the other hand, many of them are in a position to help. Many are on generous final salary pensions that their offspring can only dream about. Many are also sitting on massive gains in the value of their property, which is theirs to plunder if they need it in retirement.

Their cash-strapped kids have paid a small fortune to get on the property ladder, are struggling to make ends meet as wages dwindle and prices rise, and face the highest childcare costs on record. Perhaps rather than swanning off on a world cruise on their own, grandparents ought to help the rest of their family have a break.

Then there's the fact that maybe the grandparents get something out of this too. Roger Ramsden, chief executive, Saga Services, commented: "I think it's fantastic that many generations are choosing to holiday together - there are so many benefits. Everyone gets the chance to relax and the adults can take it in turns going down the water slides with the kids or sloping off for some sangria and adult company. These days, people are so busy that getting everyone together can be almost impossible, so getting the chance to go away together and create memories might be just what every family needs."

But what do you think? Let us know in the comments.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sir Mervyn outvoted by rate-setters

Press Association — 2013-06-19T12:00:00+00:00

Filed under: News

Sir Mervyn King has been denied his parting wish for more money-boosting measures this month after being outvoted in his final Bank of England rate-setting meeting.

Minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) confirmed that the governor bowed out with one last call for another £25 billion of quantitative easing (QE), with fellow colleagues Paul Fisher and David Miles joining him once more.

They believed the case to expand QE to £400 billion remained "compelling" as recovery prospects were still only modest despite recent encouraging economic news and warned over the risk of fresh turmoil in the eurozone, according to the minutes.

But they remained outvoted six to three as the majority of the MPC opted to keep QE on hold at £375 billion, arguing that the recovery was already taking hold following "striking" surveys from the construction, manufacturing and services sectors for May.

The meeting was Sir Mervyn's 194th and capped 16 years of rate-setting at the Bank as he prepares to hand over the reins to successor Mark Carney on July 1.

Hopes for further economic progress in the second quarter means Sir Mervyn can hand over to Mr Carney with the recovery on track.

But inflation continues to prove a headache, with MPC members warning once more it will leap to around 3% this summer and remain "well above" the 2% target for the rest of the year. Official figures released on Tuesday showed Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation climbing to a higher-than-expected 2.7% in May, from 2.4% in April.

Rising inflation is expected to see Mr Carney tasked with writing an open letter to the Chancellor explaining why inflation has risen more than 1% above target, soon after taking office. Under new rules, if inflation hits 3.1% or above in June as many economists expect, Mr Carney will need to pen the letter for publication alongside minutes of the August rates meeting.

The MPC minutes showed most of the members said the costs of more QE would outweigh the benefits, but Sir Mervyn, Mr Fisher and Mr Miles argued that extra monetary action was unlikely to stoke inflation.

Overall, the committee said Britain remains on the path to a "slow but sustained recovery in growth".

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mail staff vote for rivals' boycott

Press Association — 2013-06-19T11:30:00+00:00

Filed under: News

Royal Mail workers have voted in favour of boycotting competitors' mail and have massively rejected the Government's controversial plan to privatise the company.

A ballot of 112,000 delivery, sorting office and other postal staff by the Communication Workers Union (CWU) showed that 96% opposed the planned sell-off of Royal Mail. More than nine out of 10 said they backed a boycott of mail handled by rival companies amid union fears that jobs will be hit by "unfair" competition.

The ballot, which had a turnout of 74%, also returned huge votes in favour of the union's claim for an above-inflation pay rise, and a policy of non co-operation against the "relentless pursuit" of performance demands.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "No-one has yet asked postal workers what they think about privatisation. Today postal workers have spoken loud and clear with a massive 96% roundly rejecting the Government's plans to privatise Royal Mail. The workforce does not support the Government or Royal Mail on selling the company.

"This company is flourishing in public ownership, as the recent doubling of profits proves. It's becoming less clear what this policy is about. Why privatise this profitable company? Today's ballot result shows we have resounding support for all the union's policies. This is a strong message to take forward action in each area to improve the working lives of postal workers and protect the services and jobs which customers and communities value."

CWU deputy general secretary Dave Ward said: "This ballot result is a damning rejection of the tired old Government privatisation policy and the actions of the Royal Mail board in support of this. Postal workers have worked incredibly hard to turn the fortunes of the company around. Royal Mail is not a financial basket case and they know privatisation is only benefiting vested interests.

"Postal workers are not going to sacrifice their souls for a so-called 10% stake when they know their jobs, pensions and conditions are once again under threat. The Government and Royal Mail have completely alienated the workforce and it's time for serious negotiations to find a solution that really can align the interests of workers, customers and the company. If not, then prolonged industrial conflict is inevitable.

"On a mail boycott, Royal Mail workers have shown they understand the threat to the universal service from unfair competition and the race to the bottom on their own terms and conditions. The way competition is being introduced does not benefit customers, small businesses or postal workers in whatever company they work for."

Royal Mail said it was committed to seeking an agreement with the union on the way forward that equipped the business for the future and was fair to employees, adding in a statement: "Royal Mail operates in a very competitive market and customers can move their business very quickly. This could result in a significant loss of business.

"Royal Mail is required by law to allow access to our network and deliver all the mail we are asked to. Royal Mail is fully committed to the delivery of all of the mail entrusted to us. We have consistently made clear we will take all appropriate steps to prevent any disruption of this. All our employees must continue to handle all mail, deliver to the same high service standards as normal and do the job that they are paid to do, as stated in their contracts of employment."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Ofcom probes BT complaint on BSkyB

Press Association — 2013-06-19T11:00:00+00:00

Filed under: TV, Phone & Broadband

The battle for armchair sports fans has escalated after regulator Ofcom launched an investigation into BSkyB's alleged refusal to share its Sky Sports channels with BT on "fair terms".

The telecoms watchdog said it has opened an investigation into Sky's "alleged abuse of a dominant position" regarding the wholesale supply of Sky Sports 1 and 2 - its flagship sports channels.

BT wants to offer Sky Sports via YouView set-top boxes to complement its own newly-launched sport offer. But BT said Sky will not allow the channels to be broadcast over BT boxes unless it offers its rival wholesale access to its own BT Sport channels in return.

BT sparked a price war with Sky last month when it launched free live Premier League action to football fans for the first time - if they buy its broadband starting at £10 a month.

From August, BT will show 38 Premier League games a season in the first major challenge to Sky's dominance of top-flight football.

The complaint was revealed as the countdown to the new Premier League season began with the release of fixtures.

BT argues that as a new player, it should not have to sell its channels to Sky, but its rival has an obligation to share the channels as the major force in paid-for sport broadcasting. BT added that Sky is discriminating against it because it already allows another company using the YouView box, TalkTalk, to sell Sky Sports.

Ofcom said it will "consider whether Sky has abused a dominant position under UK and/or EU competition law".

The regulator added it will decide by next month whether to grant "interim relief" - which could temporarily give BT access to Sky Sports.

BT currently offers TV to about 810,000 customers over its Vision and YouView boxes. BT is allowed to show Sky Sports over its older Vision boxes, but is moving customers to the more high-tech YouView platform.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Record fine for home finance trader

Press Association — 2013-06-19T10:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Scams & Fraud

A home finance arranger has been branded a "disgrace to financial services" and fined a record sum of nearly £1 million for misleading vulnerable homeowners when selling and renting back their properties.

Birmingham-based Gurpreet Singh Chadda, who traded under the names Red2Black Homes and B&L Homes, was banned from working in the financial services industry and fined £945,277 by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the largest ever penalty for a sole trader.

The FCA said Mr Chadda, who arranged for clients to sell properties and lease them back to carry on living in their homes, deliberately misled homeowners for his own gain and lied to the FCA. He falsified valuations to deceive homeowners that their properties were worth less than their real value - in some cases sellers received just 38% of the true sale price of their homes, according to the FCA.

Sale and rent back deals are often used by vulnerable homeowners who are in financial difficulties and need to raise money to pay mortgage arrears and avoid imminent repossession. The FCA estimates Mr Chadda pocketed nearly £700,000 from the seven deals it investigated between June 2009 and January 2010.

Tracey McDermott, director of enforcement and financial crime, said Mr Chadda's misconduct was the "most shocking we have seen from a home finance arranger", adding: "He is a disgrace to financial services. He deliberately misled his clients for his own personal gain and then repeatedly and cynically lied to the FCA.

"Mr Chadda is not fit to work in regulated financial services and he presents a serious risk to customers and lenders alike with his dishonest and unscrupulous actions. The unprecedented level of the fine for a sole trader reflects our determination to deprive him of the gains he made as a result of his misconduct."

The FCA said he also told clients that he would be buying their homes, when the purchases were made by other people, while further misleading mortgage providers unaware that the deals were sale and rent back transactions.

Although the sellers expected to get a discounted price for their properties, they were often charged "grossly unfair and excessive hidden fees" and were also unaware that Mr Chadda was receiving the full price for the properties from the purchasers.

He also made false and misleading statements to the FCA, failed to disclose relevant documents and information and created misleading documents. The FCA said he even arranged for people to impersonate his customers in an attempt to mislead the regulator.

The case has been referred to West Midlands Police.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

One in four travelling without insurance

lovemoney.com — 2013-06-19T10:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Holidays

An increasing number of Brits are going on holiday without buying insurance, and that could be a very expensive mistake.

Holidaymakers are risking huge medical bills by not buying travel insurance, according to a report from travel agent body ABTA.
One in four of us is now not bothering to buy insurance, which is a rise of 5% between 2011 and 2012. The number rises to nearly half (48%) of younger travellers aged 15-24.

The number one reason for not getting insurance is the cost.

Lack of protection
Between 2011 and 2012, 3,793 Brits were hospitalised abroad, which works out at 10 every day. They made an average claim of £914.

Make sure your holiday doesn't end in disaster - get travel insurance

Worryingly, many people have no idea how much overseas treatment would cost. For example, 47% mistakenly think it would cost £5,000 or less for treatment for a broken leg in the USA, when in fact it would be around eight times more.

Many people also wrongly assume if they are travelling in Europe with a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), they will be protected. But this only provides basic state help and won't cover extras such as repatriation to the UK. Our article What does an EHIC really cover? will tell you exactly what it does do.

An EHIC is also not sufficient protection for adventurous travel, such as skiing or snowboarding. These activities aren't covered under most general travel insurance policies either and 50% of travellers won't check their documents before taking part in these sports.

The cost of overseas treatment
In reality, the cost of travel insurance is probably far lower than you might think. Travellers spend an average of just £24 a year on travel insurance, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), which is also the same average amount as they spend on last-minute purchases at the airport. A small amount for protection that could save thousands of pounds.

An air ambulance from the Canary Islands to the UK, for example, could cost between £15,000 and £20,000, according to Direct Line.

Below I've listed some examples of how much you could be looking at paying for various emergencies abroad.

Treatment	Country	Cost
One night stay in hospital	Spain	£1,200
One night stay in an intensive care ward	Turkey	£1,600
One night stay in an intensive care ward	USA	£10,000
Angiogram	USA	£15,000-£20,000
Air ambulance to UK	Mexico	£75,000

Source: Direct Line

Getting the right travel insurance
The Government won't pay the cost for medical bills or repatriation so it's vital to get insurance to cover you while you're away. This is especially important as 78% of people asked by ABTA said they wouldn't have the money to pay for treatment to cover hospital bills abroad.

A new consumer campaign has been created by ABTA and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make people aware of the risks of going on holiday without insurance.

Making sure you have the right insurance is vital and doesn't take long. Prices can vary so shopping around, via a comparison tool like ours, is a good way to find a competitive quote.

It's important to make sure the policy is suitable for your needs as there are lots of different options to look for, single or annual trip insurance for example, and you'll need to declare any existing medical conditions, otherwise you risk invalidating the policy if you do need treatment.

Our article How to get top travel insurance for your holiday has more information on how to pick the right policy for you.

Compare travel insurance quotes

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Relendex: new peer-to-peer property investment

lovemoney.com — 2013-06-19T09:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Loans

Lend money to commercial property owners who rent out shops, office and industrial space, and who even operate student and other residential property accommodation.

Relendex is a new peer-to-peer lender that allows you to lend to commercial property owners. The Real Estate Lending Exchange - Relendex - enables you to lend against business premises, and also commercially-operated residential properties worth at least £500,000. To be clear: small-time buy-to-let landlords and homeowners need not apply for a Relendex loan.
All the loans are secured against shop, office, industrial and leisure properties that are rented out by the owners. The rents earned are used to pay the interest on your loans.

You can read details of each loan on the Relendex website, and see professional valuations and title reports. All the loans are secured, which means that, if your borrower stops paying its bills, you could get your money back if Relendex forces the borrower to sell its property to pay off its debts.

Interest is paid to you quarterly and you need to pay tax on it through your tax return.

At present 20% of the interest is withheld for HM Revenue & Customs in advance, although Relendex has applied for relief on this. That's possibly because, according to Relendex, pension companies are going to be lending pension savers' money through its service. In that event, you might have the opportunity to lend through a pension, which means you won't have to pay taxes on the interest you earn.

Could you pay less for a loan by borrowing from a peer-to-peer site? Find out

Through a pension, a 5.25% interest rate will be the equivalent of a taxable rate of more than 6.5% for a basic-rate taxpayer, and nearly 9% for a higher-rate payer. You'll have to pay the pension provider's costs on top though, so it will work out less than this.

How much does it cost?
The borrower pays an arrangement fee, which is typically 2%. Relendex charges the lender, by taking some of the interest. You can expect it to take around 1% or perhaps more. If your money is lent at 7%, for example, you could receive 6%.

Getting out of your loans early
Unlike other peer-to-peer services, with most Relendex loans the money you lend - the capital - is not repaid until the end of the loan; it's not repaid gradually at the same time as the interest payments. This could be a plus point, since you don't have to keep reinvesting your capital as it's gradually dripped back to you.

You can get out of the loan early, however. As with other peer-to-peer services, you can re-sell your loans through Relendex's website at no cost if you need to get your money back. At first the loans will be re-sold at the same value that you put in, but later, depending on demand for the loan, you might receive more or less of your starting capital back to leave the loan early.

This will probably depend on, among other things, how many lenders are competing to take over your loan and on how interest rates on new loans compare.

Here's a simplified example: if new loans have interest rates of 4.75% and you were getting 5.25%, lenders buying from you might be willing to give you back slightly more money than you invested in order to ear a better interest rate.

Borrowers can repay their loans to you early. Relendex charges them a penalty for this. You, the lender, receive most of this penalty, which could be the equivalent of, say, 0.85% of the loan part that is repaid early.

If you lend through Relendex, you need to pay in at least £5,000 to open an account, and you have to contribute at least £1,000 per loan. This differs from the more established players, which let you lend as little as £10 to individual borrowers to spread out your risks. However, you could spread the risk more by lending to different types of borrowers: those renting out office space and those renting out retail space, for example.

As with Zopa and several other peer-to-peer services, you can lend automatically in order to build a more diverse portfolio more easily. You can set a minimum interest rate you want to lend at, and choose what risk ratings you'll lend to, based on Relendex's own criteria. You can also set the length of time you want to lend for.

Risk controls
Relendex ensures that you are paid your interest from property rents before the borrower - the commercial-property owner - gets the difference.

Relendex refers to its "highly experienced property lending team", including former senior lending officers with Rothschild Banking Group. It specifically mentions Peter Johns as chairman, who it describes as fomer Head of Banking at NM Rothschild. There is as good as no information about him on the internet.

Relendex says it holds your unlent money in a segregated client account at Royal Bank of Scotland, Guernsey.

In the event that a borrower defaults, lenders will get to vote on the action to be taken. Those who have lent the most have the largest say in the matter.

Unlike most investments, you currently have no protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme when you invest in peer-to-peer loans, although that's likely to change soon for UK-based services. Relendex is based in Guernsey and it's not part of a Guernsey compensation scheme either. You also can't complain to any financial ombudsman, as peer-to-peer services are not regulated yet.

Consider all your options
There are other ways to invest in commercial property, such as through property investment funds or commercial property bonds. It would be too much to try and cover those here, but you should investigate them, since they offer a different balance of risk and rewards, and the types of risks are a little bit different.

You should also consider completely different investments. Putting your money in a savings account has lower potential rewards, but the risks are lower. You could save for a deposit on a property. You could invest in shares or in further training for your own career. Or you could invest your money through a different type of peer-to-peer lender.

Compare peer-to-peer lending products

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Are female fund managers better?

lovemoney.com — 2013-06-19T09:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Investing

We look at the record of the seven best women fund managers.

Women aren't highly represented in fund management, making up only 5% of all fund managers.
Bestinvest collates data on funds and fund managers. Recently it published details of the top women fund managers and described some of them as "exceptional role models".
Fund management is an area where very, very, very few people of any gender prove to be truly exceptional in the long run, so I took a look at Bestinvest's list of the top seven women fund managers to see if any of them really are reliable outperformers.

Fund manager	Number of funds managed	10-year returns*	Average 10-year returns of peers investing in same sectors
Julie Dean	6 (3 lead, 3 deputy)	227%	128%
Rosemary Banyard	3 (all co-managed)	300%	205%
Margaret Lawson	3 (2 deputy, 1 co-managed)	61%**	51%**
Sarah Whitley	2 (1 lead, 1 co-managed)	203%	122%
Jane Andrews	2 (both lead)	270%	223%
Audrey Ryan	3 (1 lead, 2 co-managed	208%	140%
Henrietta Luk		Not enough data

*Here I use Trustnet's data because it's easier to see managers' records over ten-year periods and some other data I needed, although it does estimate and compare their performance differently to Bestinvest.

**Over seven years. Trustnet had no specific data over 10.

I'll help you understand what that table says, and doesn't say, in a moment.

Firstly, a quick note about Margaret Lawson's record. Her time as a fund manager appears to have been interrupted at some point: she started in fund management back in 1985 according to Bestinvest and is a fund manager today, but Trustnet and Bestinvest state her record lasts just 14 years.

Trustnet doesn't have enough data prior to 2005, which is why Lawson's record in the table above is over the past seven years, instead of 10. Bestinvest, however, reports that Lawson returned less than the benchmark up to the year 2005 by a total 23%.

These managers have all been better than average
The above table shows how these managers did against the average fund manager investing in the same sectors. Notice that they are typically co-managers or even deputy managers, and it's difficult under these circumstances for investors to ascertain how much of their higher returns are due to their own skills. If, under further research, you find it too difficult to establish where the skill lies, you should play safe by not investing with them when they go off by themselves.

Beating your fellow fund managers, as shown in the table above, is easier than beating the market or in beating funds that merely attempt to track the market.

If the market rose 50% in the past five years, a market-tracking fund, after fees and costs of, say, roughly 1%, might have made 40%-45%. (In a few sectors cheap tracking funds aren't available, but there are enough to choose from that almost any investor paying close attention to costs will be able to find an alternative they're satisfied with.)

At the same time, the average actively-managed fund (and the average fund manager) might make only 30%-35%, after management fees of 1.5%, and hidden costs and other costs of, say, 1%. The manager has great difficulty making up for those extra costs. On average, their returns are reduced by the size of those costs.

Using those figures - which I must emphasise are very rough estimates - against the returns of Bestinvest's women fund managers, we get an indication that some of them might not have beaten simple trackers by much, or at all, despite the greater risks you take by paying their higher costs:

Fund manager	10-year returns*	Estimated return of closest trackers
Julie Dean	227%	162%
Rosemary Banyard	300%	248%
Margaret Lawson	61%**	74%**
Sarah Whitley	203%	155%
Jane Andrews	270%	269%
Audrey Ryan	208%	175%

As you can see, these managers are less spectacular when compared to a rough estimate of what trackers might have given you. Margaret Lawson and Jane Andrews might even have fared no better than the market, and perhaps worse, if there are trackers available in their sectors. Using this simple measure, only Julie Dean and Rosemary Banyard appear to have justified, and made up for, their higher costs, by providing outstanding rewards in the sectors they're investing in.

Consistency is the final ingredient
Is beating trackers over ten years enough to make these managers exceptional? Dean and Banyard have given what looks likely to be seriously market-beating returns, but how did they get there? Was it through consistent outperformance?

Take a look at this third table, showing how many years investors like you might have invested with those same managers and still done no better than the average fund manager:

Fund manager	When total return was roughly the same as peers:
Julie Dean	Over 10 years from begin 2000 to end 2009.
Rosemary Banyard	Over 9 years from begin 2000 to end 2008.
Margaret Lawson	Over 3 years from autumn 2005 to autumn 2008.
Sarah Whitley	Over 13 years from begin 2000 to begin 2012.
Jane Andrews	Over 11.5 years from begin 2000 to summer 2011.
Audrey Ryan	Over 8.5 years from begin 2000 to summer 2008.
Henrietta Luk	No Trustnet data.

The above table paints a disturbing picture. It shows my rough estimates taken from the Trustnet website of the longest periods of time that you might have invested in these managers and still done no better than an average actively-managed fund.

What would you do as an investor if you saw your manager was just average after eight or more years? That's what all of these have done. (Except Lawson, but remember my explanation of her interrupted record above.)

By my rough estimates, if you invested in Julie Dean, the apparent star of our table, back at the start of the year 2000, you would be no better off ten years later, at the end of 2009, than if you'd invested with the average fund manager in her sector.

If there are good tracker funds in the sectors she invests in, you'd have likely got far lower returns during that time than someone who decided to skip the high management costs and track the market. (And even if you chose a tracker fund in another sector that had lower returns, you might well have got to where you are with less risk, due largely to the lower costs.)

The reality appears to be that the vast bulk of Dean's higher returns in the past ten years has come in just a minority of years, which could easily be accounted for by luck.

Perhaps there are other factors. Maybe when she started she was naïve and had a lot to learn, or perhaps she was dragged down by co-managers - or co-managers have given her a recent boost.

Whatever the reason, I think it would be reckless for an investor to assume this manager has skilfully beaten the market based on the 10-year performance alone. You need to either look elsewhere or investigate this manager and her record further, methodically and minutely.

I think this all shows how hard it is to find exceptional managers, whatever the gender.

Get busy learning
This is just a very basic overview of the fund managers mentioned. There are a lot of questions I have left unasked and unanswered about managed funds (not least why virtually no fund managers can justify their charges), and there are several very important tangents that I have not covered, as well as further important information, for example about the methods I've used here. I'd need at least 50 times my maximum word limit to cover everything in a useful way.

What I want you to take away from this brief article is that trying to pick fund managers is a very complicated subject, which is perhaps one reason why so many fund websites try to simplify - oversimplify - things for you, e.g. by focusing your attention on three-year or five-year returns when growing piles of evidence say those are completely useless ways to predict future performance.

As soon as you accept that choosing managed funds is tricky, the sooner you can start making better decisions - whether that is to do an awful lot more research before putting your faith in a fund manager, or to stay out of managed funds altogether.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Should you avoid a fixed energy tariff?

lovemoney.com — 2013-06-19T08:26:00+00:00

Filed under: Utilities

Are long-term fixed energy deals all they're cracked up to be? Or could a variable deal be better for your budget? We crunch some numbers to see.

The general consensus among experts is that gas and electricity bills are going to rise in the next few years.
Just last month First Utility warned that energy costs could overtake mortgage repayments by 2025.
That's not so far-fetched when you consider resources are dwindling and the cost of implementing green schemes are adding to our bills.

So with this grim future in mind it's perfectly logical to think about locking into a fixed rate energy deal to ride out the hard times - and the longer the better.

Traditionally fixed tariffs have offered up to 18 months of certainty but now there's a raft of longer lasting deals offering to fix your bills until 2016.

But in the rush to fix for as long as possible are we ignoring the benefits of variable tariffs?

Fixed vs. variable
Fixed rate energy tariffs offer a set price on the unit costs of gas and electricity. This type of deal can offer future savings if prices rise during the term and can prevent any shock increases as long as your consumption stays the same.

But going for a fixed energy deal is a bit of a gamble in a similar way to signing up for a fixed rate mortgage. You're protected from price rises (which you usually pay a premium for), but not price drops and leaving early will often incur penalties.

With a variable rate energy deal you're likely to benefit straight away from a cheaper offer instead of waiting for future price rises to bring in the savings. But you take the gamble that energy prices won't rise - which doesn't seem likely - in the hope that should they stay the same or fall you will benefit.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that energy companies have to give 30 days' notice of a price hike, during which time you can switch onto a better deal.

Taking the long view
With longer-lasting fixed rate energy deals available it's easy to assume these will be better value.
But when are the savings delivered and how big are they likely to be?

Below I have used a 10% year-on-year price rise to compare how the cheapest variable tariff and the longest lasting fixed rate deal stack up over the course of three years and three months.

For the comparison I am going to use the npower Price Fix September 2016 as it's the longest lasting deal around at the moment with over three years of fixed prices. The deal will cost an average household £1,318 a year.

	Annual cost to June 2014	Annual cost to June 2015	Annual cost to June 2016	Quarterly cost to September 2016	Totals
Average energy prices	£1,420.00	£1,562.00	£1,718.20	£472.51	£5,172.71
Npower Price Fix September 2016	£1,318.00	£1,318.00	£1,318.00	£329.50	£4,283.50
Savings year-on-year	£102.00	£244.00	£400.20	£143.01	£889.21

And to compare I have used the best variable rate deal on the market - the Sainsbury's Energy Online July 2014, which costs just £1,157 for those with an average use of gas and electricity.

	Annual cost to June 2014	Annual cost to June 2015	Annual cost to June 2016	Quarterly cost to September 2016	Totals
Average energy prices	£1,420	£1,562.00	£1,718.20	£472.51	£5,173
Sainsbury's Energy Online July 2014	£1,157	£1,272.70	1399.97	£384.99	£4,215
Savings year-on-year	£263	£289.30	£318	£88	£958

Surprisingly Sainsbury's discounted variable offers a bigger saving, assuming a 10% year-on-year price rise. The deal could save a household £68.79 if it lasted as long as the npower offer.

The savings offered from the npower deal only start to stack up and overtake the Sainsbury's deal in the third year and remaining three months of the offer. So for people looking for instant savings a variable deal looks more attractive than a longer-lasting fix in this scenario.

I should point out that the table with the variable costs assumes that Sainsbury's offers a 4% discount on its Clear & Simple tariff rates beyond 31st July 2014, when this deal ends. But the same comparison could be done with other variable deals without the deadline like the first:utility iSave V15. Using this deal the npower deal offers savings of £84.21 over the term - not a lot considering the £119 premium it had in the first place.

	Annual cost to June 2014	Annual cost to June 2015	Annual cost to June 2016	Quarterly cost to September 2016*	Totals
Average energy prices	£1,420	£1,562.00	£1,718.20	£472.51	£5,173
first:utility iSave V15	£1,199	£1,318.90	1450.79	£398.97	£4,368
Savings year-on-year	£221	£243.10	£267	£74

Choosing a deal
Variable deals won't be for everyone, but neither will fixed rate tariffs.

Fixed deals will suit those that need absolute certainty, while variable deals are more appropriate for those with a bit more flexibility in their budgets.

Variable deals are cheaper than fixed rate deals early on. Fixed tariffs can only offer potential future savings.

That said, fixed rate deals are cheap at the moment, so it is worth considering them, especially those without cancellation fees.

The npower Online Price Fix February 2015 is just £23 more expensive than the Sainsbury's Energy Online July 2014. Plus it doesn't come with any cancellation charges, while Sainsbury's charges £30 per fuel.

Energyhelpline.com have rounded up the cheapest variable and fixed rate deals on offer at the moment to help you decide what's best for you.

Cheapest variable rate deals

Tariff	Average cost	Savings*	Deal	Cancellation charges
Sainsbury's Energy Online July 2014	£1,157	£263	4% discount on Clear & Simple tariff rates until 31st July 2014	£30 per fuel until 31 July 2014
SSE Discounted Energy Bonus October 2014	£1,158	£262	Prices are guaranteed to be 11% cheaper until 1st October 2014	£50 if you switch away before 1st October 2014
Scottish Power Online Energy Saver 22	£1,180	£240	Prices will always remain 6.3% lower than ScottishPower's standard gas and electricity prices until 31st July 2014	£25 per fuel until 31 July 2014
npower Energy Online August 2014	£1,182	£238	Customers on this tariff are guaranteed at least a 2% lower bill than npower's current Standard (off-line) variable prices until 31st August 2014	£30 per fuel until end of discount period 31/8/2014
first:utility iSave V15	£1,199	£221	Ongoing	None

*Based on typical gas and electricity bill, for someone who has never switched, costing £1,420

Cheapest fixed rate deals

Supplier	Average Cost	Savings*	Deal	Cancellation charges
npower Online Price Fix February 2015	£1,180	£240	Prices fixed until 28 February 2015	None
EDF Blue +Price Promise February 2015	£1,192	£228	Prices fixed until 28 february 2015	None
Scottish Power Online Fixed Price Energy October 2014	£1,201	£219	Prices fixed until 30 September 2014	£25 per fuel before fixed end date
first:utility iSave Fixed v8 September 2014	£1,225	£195	Prices fixed until 30 September 2014	£30 per fuel until end of fix
e.on Age UK Fixed One Year v3	£1,231	£189	Prices fixed for 12 months (only available to over 60s)	None

*Based on typical gas and electricity bill, for someone who has never switched, costing £1,420
All calculations are for an average usage dual fuel household paying by monthly direct debit. Average usage as defined by OFGEM as 16,500 kWh pa of gas and 3,300 kWh pa of electricity.

Compare gas and electricity tariffs and see if you can save

More stories

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

No savings accounts and Cash ISAs can now beat inflation

lovemoney.com — 2013-06-19T08:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Savings & ISAs, Investing

The recent increase in the annual rate of inflation was further bad news for Britain's beleaguered savers. But there are some places where you can still get inflation-beating returns.

The UK's annual rate of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), rose to 2.7% in May.
Not only does that number mean the cost of living is continuing to rise for many of us, particularly those of us who drive or fly, it also means NO ordinary savings accounts or Cash ISAs now beat inflation.

That's despite the fact that there are a staggering 820 savings accounts available at the moment.
A year ago, when CPI inflation was 2.8%, there were 87 savings accounts and 123 Cash ISAs that beat inflation.

Sadly, that news probably won't come as a surprise to many of us. Savings rates have been plummeting for some time, in part due to the Government's Funding For Lending scheme. This has offered cheap loans to banks and building societies, meaning they don't need savers' money to boost their balance sheets.

Financial research website Moneyfacts says that a basic-rate taxpayer now needs to find an account paying 3.38% to beat inflation, while a higher-rate saver is looking for an account offering 4.5%.
So where can savers turn now for inflation-beating returns? There are some options, but most come with some element of risk.

Peer-to-peer lending
You could earn decent returns by lending your money to other people or to small businesses. Peer-to-peer websites such as RateSetter (which lends to individuals) and Funding Circle (which lends to small businesses) promise inflation-beating returns, for basic-rate taxpayers at least.

Product	Gross interest rate (AER)	Interest rate after tax (basic-rate taxpayer)	Interest rate after tax (higher-rate taxpayer)
Funding Circle	6.20%	4.96%	3.72%
RateSetter Five-Year Income	5.20%	4.16%	3.12%
RateSetter Three-Year Income	4.30%	3.44%	2.58%

Those RateSetter rates are inclusive of fees and bad debts. However, neither company is covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which covers £85,000-worth of savings in any one institution should it go belly up.

However, RateSetter does have a Provision Fund which it runs to protect savers' money.

Current accounts
If you have £2,500 or less to save, then it's actually worth looking at one current account at the moment. And that's Nationwide's FlexDirect account. This is paying 5% AER on balances of up to £2,500 for the first yea, providing you pay in at least £1,000 a month to the account.

But you don't need to switch to Nationwide as your main account. You could just transfer in the £1,000 from elsewhere and then transfer it out again.

Credit unions
We've heard of some credit unions paying above-inflation rates on Cash ISAs, so it's worth taking a look at the Find Your Credit Union website to see what's on offer in your local area or your industry. Credit unions are covered by the FSCS up to the £85,000 limit.

Stocks and shares ISAs
We're getting into more risky waters now. If you want to take the plunge into the stock market, you can invest up to £11,520 in a stocks and shares ISA in this tax year.

With the stock market rising at the moment, that might look like an attractive option. But be aware that what goes up can also come down - fast. You should really only be considering stocks and shares ISAs if you're in for the longer haul. That way you can hopefully smooth out any losses over time.

Index trackers are by far the cheapest way to invest in the stock market, with low fees as there are no fund managers involved.

Weigh up risk and reward
When you're looking at places to put your money away, it's always important to consider your attitude to risk. More importantly, could you afford to lose your money if the worst happened? These are questions you need to ask before you make your final decision.

More stories

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Building Societies warn on Help to Buy

Adrian Holliday — 2013-06-19T07:54:00+00:00

Filed under: House Prices

More criticism of George Osborne's Help to Buy Scheme. The Building Societies Association (BSA) has weighed in, claiming that it could help trigger another house price bubble.

Osborne's scheme has already been described as one of the "most stupid economic ideas" in the last 30 years by a leading City commentator. What are the concerns?

"Indentured servitude"

Previously the boss of global strategy team at Société Générale, Albert Edwards, said he thought the Chancellor's flagship Help to Buy program could actually inflate property prices further, pushing more homeowner hopefuls into "indentured servitude". Now the Building Societies Association is having its own doubts.

"It [the Help to Buy scheme] cannot become a permanent feature of the market," says Paul Broadhead of the BSA, "beyond the time when the country is in economic recovery mode. Care is needed to prevent the actions taken today inadvertently causing a distorted housing market in three years time - a market where state intervention has artificially hiked prices."

Clinging on

Of course we don't know where interest rates - now at a 300-year-low - will be several years ahead. Many recent British homeowners are just clinging onto home ownership thanks to low interest rates, though many are denied the better loan deals due to their smaller loan-to-value ratio.

Another pressure on new or prospective home owners is that wages aren't rising. Recent Nationwide Building Society data showed that the average first time London buyer was paying more than 50% of their take home salary in mortgage payments - despite the supposedly low interest rate environment.

Market distortion

So, do we really need the Government to artificially distort the market? "I believe it [Help to Buy] truly is a moronic policy that stands head and shoulders above most of the stupid economic policies I have seen implemented during my 30 years in this business," Albert Edwards said.

Meanwhile the BSA claims just one in five first time buyers (20%) says Help to Buy will help them. So what do the other 80% think? What about a climb in interest rates, helping fatten up their deposits while nicely flattening house prices to affordable levels?

What do you think?

More stories

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Fewer Britons holidaying abroad

Press Association — 2013-06-19T07:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Holidays

Fewer Britons are travelling abroad for their holidays because of the ailing economy, says a report.

More than half of people will stay at home instead of overseas for a break this year, a rise of 14% over the last three years.

And 12% will not take any time off at all because of financial worries, research firm HPI found.

A study of 1,000 people across the UK found 54% plan to stay at home this year, a rise from 40% in 2010.

Of the 46% who will go abroad, 19% will organise their own break rather than choosing a package holiday, 13% will specifically travel outside school holiday periods to cut costs and 5% will stay with family or friends who live overseas.

Don't fly off without travel insurance - compare policies now

Of those who feel they cannot afford to go abroad this summer, 22% intend intend to book a holiday in the UK, while 13% will spend their time off at home.

Juliet Strachan, managing partner at HPI, said: "These figures clearly show how the recession has impacted holiday plans.

"Lack of consumer confidence, uncertainty around job situations and increasingly squeezed disposable incomes are forcing people to reprioritise and therefore compromise on their annual holiday.

"While the wider economy might be showing signs of a slow recovery, in reality consumers' own budgets are still under intense pressure, causing holiday-loving Brits to make sacrifices with how they use their time off."

:: HPI polled 1,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in February.

Boss unfairly sacked PA after wife discovered their affair

Sarah Coles — 2013-06-19T07:14:00+00:00

Filed under: Career

An employment tribunal has ruled that a boss unfairly dismissed his assistant, after their three-year-affair was discovered by his wife.

It shows how dangerous a workplace affair can be, and this is just one of the many risks.

Sacked

The London Central Employment Tribunal heard that the chief executive of a business in London (who cannot be named for legal reasons) had been having an affair with his PA for three years, during which time he had bought her a car, a flat and luxury holidays.

However, after anonymous-tip off, his wife discovered the affair, and he asked her to leave. According to the Daily Mail, he then offered her redundancy - which she refused, before finally sacking her during a phone call, when he told her: "Don't you f****** come back."

The tribunal found that she had been unfairly dismissed. According to the Telegraph it ruled : "The reason [the chief executive] dismissed the claimant was because their relationship had dramatically and irretrievably broken down. He was in a state of emotional crisis." "There was no procedure and the dismissal was necessarily unfair."

The Telegraph added that his behaviour around the office had also outraged staff. On one day he announced: "It's t*ts out day". He also told his PA: "You've got your 'f*** me' boots on." And at a Christmas party he gave all his employees a sex toy. It reported that the tribunal said: "The tribunal wish to state unequivocally that this sort of behaviour has no place in the office of the 21st century." However, it dismissed her separate sex discrimination claim.

The risks

It highlights just how difficult office affairs can make life, and the break-up isn't the only only point at which an affair can damage your career.

Jemma Pugh, a Solicitor with Lester Aldridge LLP says: "Whatever your view on the morality of such conduct, actually having an affair with a colleague is unlikely to warrant any disciplinary action unless there are specific restrictions within the organisation which ban relationships between staff. "

If there is a specific rule about relationships, however, it is a disciplinary offence to break it, so if your affair is discovered your career will suffer.

Another risk is that the affair will mean that confidentiality is breached: Pugh says this can happen where "two people, even within the same Company, are sharing information which is confidential to a particular team, deal or client." Often there are confidentiality clauses within employment contracts.

By revealing confidential information, an employee is likely to be in breach of contract. This could potentially result in disciplinary action being taken against them. Depending on the seriousness of the breach, this could even amount to gross misconduct.

Then there's the risk that the business could be brought into disrepute. Pugh says: "Arguably the most important aspect of running a successful business is a good reputation. If this is put into jeopardy by employees' conduct, then again, this could be grounds for disciplinary action."

Finally, there's the risk it will impact on your behaviour at work. Pugh says: "Inappropriately conducting an affair at work, for example unsuitable behaviour in the workplace or during working time, could well result in disciplinary action being taken against the individuals involved."

All in all, it seems a highly risky business. However, with the Vault recently finding that 57% of people know someone who had an extra-marital affair at the office, it seems like these are risks that some people are prepared to take.

More stories

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Degree class 'matters for salary'

Press Association — 2013-06-19T07:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Career

Graduates who leave university with at least a 2:1 can expect to earn around £10,000 more a year than those with lower degrees, according to new research.

But it also suggests that some of the highest-paying jobs do not require a degree at all.

The analysis of more than half a million jobs, conducted by jobs search engine Adzuna, found that students who leave university with a 2:2 or a third can expect to earn around £10,450 less each year than their peers with higher degrees - a loss of almost £500,000 over a working lifetime.

Students looking to earn big salaries should opt for science and maths, the findings suggest - the top-earning degrees were engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, maths and civil engineering.

The average salary for a maths graduate stands at £41,568, the research found, while civil engineers take home £41,124. But the study found that some jobs pay much higher than this - and do not require a degree.

Someone working on an offshore oil platform can expect to take home £70,500 a year on average while a commodities trader earns around £60,464 and a firefighter's average annual salary stands at £52,960.

At the other end of the scale, some degree subjects will only lead to relatively low salaries.

On average, a graduate with a degree in hospitality and tourism can expect to earn around £18,996. Art and design attracts an average salary of £19,209 and anthropology an average pay of £21,321.

The research also looked at the types of jobs available as well as their location. It found that IT has the highest number of vacancies followed by engineering and sales.

Adzuna's head of research Flora Lowther said: "With over 2.5 million unemployed and youth unemployment still pushing one million, young people need to be smart about their choices to maximise their employment prospects and the return on their time and money."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Top judge urges court costs cut

Press Association — 2013-06-19T06:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Your Rights

Radical change might be needed to cut the cost of going to court, the UK's most senior judge said.

Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said oral court hearings and cross-examination of witnesses may have to be dispensed with in "smaller cases".

He said legal advice and legal proceedings were "beyond the means of most people" and court procedures had to become "more efficient".

"Legal services are expensive, court procedures are not always proportionate and money for legal aid is scarce," said Lord Neuberger, in a speech at the Institute for Government - a charity which aims to increase government effectiveness - in London. The duty to face up to these problems does not just lie with the Government ... We judges have to look at our procedures, and make them more efficient and proportionate in all fields."

He added: "Radical solutions may be required - such as dispensing with disclosure of documents and cross-examination, even with an oral hearing, in smaller cases: better to have a judge's summary decision quickly at proportionate cost, than a disproportionately delayed decision at exorbitant cost, or no decision because it is too expensive to get to court."

But Lord Neuberger warned against reducing access to "judicial review" - a process through which decisions made by ministers and public bodies can be challenged.

"The growth of judicial review since the 1960s reflects the significant expansion of the power of the executive, although it is also attributable to judges who grew up in the questioning 60s and 70s replacing those who came of age in the conventionally respectful 40s and 50s," he said.

"We must always bear in mind that the ability to hold the executive to account is essential to the rule of law: it protects citizens from administrative excess and ensures that the executive adheres to the law. It is equally essential for the maintenance of parliamentary sovereignty. We should take great care in any approach to reduce access to judicial review. It is a small price to pay for a democratic and just society."

Lord Neuberger said the legal profession and ministers had to work to best maintain access to justice within the "harsh realities" of Government finance. He said lessons might be learned from an online dispute resolution system such as that on internet auction site eBay.

But he warned ministers about cutting legal aid provision and said there may be a knock-on effect on court costs. He was speaking to an audience including lawyers, politicians and academics.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments