A frugal life is an easy life!

Little treasures children's trust (charity no: 1119024) are having a clothing collection to raise funds, by a company called East London Textiles Ltd (ELT).

BE WARNED - IT IS EITHER AN UNLICENSED SCAM OR INVOLVES THE THEFT OF CHARITY BAGS!

ELT's representative posted a collection bag through my door yesterday, and everyone elses letterbox on our street, completely ignoring the "No cold callers/leaflets/flyers" notices in all our windows.
I immediately ran out and threw the bag back at her, into the street, questioning wether or not she could read!
I just got a dirty look for my trouble, after I went back inside, the representative picked up the bag and threw it into my garden and walked off.

I phoned the licensing officer at my local council, to see if they have a license to do household collections - (you can search your own council licenses at the lalpac website here) - both ELT and the little treasures childrens trust, do not have a license for household collections in my area.

I spent this morning double checking that they didn't have a "National license" with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) - Once again, they are not licensed nationally.
All licenses are given out by local councils I was informed.
I was advised to report this to the Charities Commission who told me unless they get a large volume of complaints about them then they do not normally investigate!
However, if I was to visit their website and put the complaint in writing, it would be filed along with other complaints about their practice.

I then rang little treasures children's trust up, directly and spoke to a lady in their offices.
She told me she was disturbed by ELT collecting in their name in areas of England where they did not have a license - which is most of the country - and would be contacting them urgently to sort the matter out. The lady said she would ring me back with information about what had gone on and what would be done about it - this was about 6 hours ago and still no callback!

I grabbed some dinner, then phoned my local council's licensing officer to let him know what was going on, as he requested.
It cannot have been more than an hour from when I spoke to the lady at the little treasures childrens trust.
The licensing officer informed me that out of the blue, someone from East london textiles ltd had contacted his office, he was about to ring him to find out what was going on.
The licensing officer rang me back 30 minutes later, telling me, "a bloke calling himself Ivan admitted that ELT didn't have a license for our area."
He continued, "He told me that east london textiles ltd have had thousands of their collection bags stolen and they were being posted through people's letterboxes all over the country, but he did not know who had stolen them!" - conveniently, this "theft" hasn't been reported to the police either!

"There will be no collections made in our area tomorrow, as stated on the bags posted through letterboxes" - which was a token statement at best, according to our licensing officer.
As three people have informed me today, often they find that the people making vast amounts of profit from these clothing collections are also involved in setting up charities they claim to represent. It will be a case of trying to spot them collecting tomorrow, and reporting it to the licensing officer, so that the local council can bring a case against ELT for household collecting without a license (as they have now admitted).

I rang the little treasures childrens charity back, armed with this information, to find that the lady I spoke with this morning (who didn't call me back), had been "called away to an emergency meeting" but I could leave a message if I wanted to.
The lady phoned back - "I spoke with the director of the company and passed your details on, he will speak with the delivery team."
When I replied that a man called Ivan, from ELT had contacted our licensing officer, stating that no collection would take place and that the bags will have been stolen, I was told "There is a turf war going on in the north of England, we had 3000 of our bags turn up in someone's house not connected with anything!"

I have reported the case to trading standards officers in my county, if they get their act together, in our area tomorrow they will catch ELT in the act of household collecting without a license, or at the very least, catch whoever stole their bags.
What are the odds of that?

UPDATE:

It would appear that trading standards cannot be bothered to catch illegal, unlicensed scams in our area.
Gave them all the information via consumer direct yesterday, they haven't even bothered to phone back! (Remind me again why we pay so much in tax to fund them? What exactly is their job?)

I spoke also, with a community officer regarding what these people were doing - it was a bit vague about posting through letterboxes and household collections, despite pointing out that if I personally trade house to house without a license, I would be in front of a judge, yet these people are allowed to get away with it.
I was told it was "a civil matter" and as such down to the local council to bring a civil case against them.
After further reading up on it (I'm sad like that) it appears it is indeed a criminal offence to do house to house collections, in a licensing area, without a license. This was confirmed this morning by the licensing officer himself, in person.

At 11.40am today, a van pulled down our street, with "Little treasures children's trust" plastered on the side of it!
I phoned the van reg in to the licensing officer (he told me he would be out on the road today to try and catch them at it - which he was) then I rang the police and told them that the licensing officer was out looking for this van as they were committing an offence.
The officer told me they were out on patrol and the local bobbies would stop it if they came across it.
Then a knock at the door, it was the licensing officer himself, out trying to catch them at it, confirmed details and reg of van, off he went.
Then a phone call from the police, to let me know they stopped the van and warned the driver about posting sacks through letterboxes (why?) but that posting things was a civil matter to be taken up with the council (if it's not licensed then it's a criminal matter!) they then let the van go.

I repeated to the officer on the phone, that the council's licensing officer was trying to catch them and that he confirmed that it is a criminal offence to have a household collection without a license. The officer informed me of where they had stopped the van then ended the call so she could notify officers to stop the van again and call the licensing officer (Why don't these people work together?)

If there is anymore information I will post it.. just goes to show how easy it is for people to be misled and deceived for money!
What was it that little treasures childrens charity told me yesterday... ah yes there was a turf war going on and their bags have been stolen by other doorstep collectors!
Maybe I'll ring them and ask, exactly why one of their own vans is doing collections around my area today then.

DAY TWO - Sunday 25th July:

Sprog2 woke me up at 6.30am, once I'd fed and watered her, she then decided to go back to sleep.
I was still groggy after the exertions of yesterday, so I was drifting in and out of snooze mode whilst upright on the chair - only one thing worse than this, is driving whilst trying to stay awake!
I grabbed a quick coffee (which went cold before I'd got half way through it, as is the norm) and nipped upstairs to collect a pile of washing.
Got that on the go, sprog2 decided to awaken from her slumber, I tried for more than half an hour to force feed a bowl of weetabix down her neck, she was having none of it.
Washed and changed her, got her dressed (for those without children, this sounds like a simple task - which it would be if it wasn't more akin to trying to untangle a pile of long snakes with the occasional screaming in the lughole!) sprog2 kindly decided to scratch her own bits as I turned to get a new nappy out of the bag, covering her hand in vaseline in the process, which I only discovered later on as she tried to manually claw out my front teeth with her nails of razor blade sharpness.

I then attempted to hoover the front room - another task that sounds easier than it actually is.
Have to move all those buffers* and all her toys, one side of the room at a time, whilst wedging my left foot before the baby walker, to stop her grabbing the hoover wire or the hoover itself. It's ok in the middle of the room, but once you move your foot wedge to reach the edges, she's off like a bleedin rocket. Once completed as best I could under the pressure, I shifted direction and repeated the task on the other side of the front room.

I followed up by hoovering out all the kitchen, doormats and assorted bits of carpet in between.
As I was on the road on saturday, I stopped off at the local garage for the customary two loaves... they were out of bread, so I had to face the dreaded Tescos eeeeeek.

They kindly had a "local community fair" on in their carpark. How they can be "supporting the community" after doing so much to destroy it god only knows, but that's another post.
So of course, there was nowhere to park, I had to get some brass out of the speedbank as well, pre payment electric was running out. (I love using supermarket speedbanks - 1. It totally messes up their figures as regards how much people draw out from it and confuses their figures/statistics about how much people then go on to spend in their store - 2. This works even better when you don't use their store at all and just draw the brass out)
After walking to the furthest corner away to pick up two loaves (10p per loaf more than my local expensive garage might I add) I paid up and left, walking ages back to the car.
From there I drove across town to get some electric credit on my key.
Finally I got home to peg out the washing I had put in earlier and put another load on.
It started to rain... so out I go again to bring it all back in.

By now it was 1pm, the wife was off to work and I had a return wrestling match with sprog2, to get some scram down her neck... this time she scoffed the lot without much of a fight.

Now one thing not mentioned so far, is a thing that every parent knows about, but daren't utter the word... the POO!
Religiously, once a day it lands, it could be a 5am surprise, it could be an after dinner delight, but almost without fail, it will come. What goes into baby - must come out, in a larger quantity!
Today I got lucky, it was relatively solid, still involves changing and another "keep still or I'll cut yer legs off" battle, but at least the clothing survived.
Under normal circumstances, exactly 2 minutes before going anywhere, one arrives, often a "back burner" (one that shoots straight up the back and involves changing all clothing bar socks - factor in a baby who thinks they have a bit part in the great escape and you can imagine the carnage).

I put in some more washing and pegged it out, managed to find time to wash the pots, sprog2 had just woken up in her chair, so I popped the TV on for her, Oliver was on, I left her to make a brew and get her some tea on the go, with the melodic "who will buy" song wafting through the air, only to return, just in time to witness Bill Sykes battering Nancy to death then being shot as he tried to escape!

After food was consumed and pudding, sprog2 boarded the ankle basher (baby walker) and started turning the front room upside down.
I managed to grab a piece of toast, then it was wash time for baby, pyjamas, a quick bottle and hope she settles down.
She didn't settle, but I got a few hours of talking out of her and then we had a play.
The eye rubbing started about 9pm, by quarter past she was flat out.
Another day gone before you know it.

* Buffers - Large household things/toys, that are placed around the edge of the front room, to keep a baby in a walker away from cupboards, TV, etc.

A broadband tax of 50p per month was to be brought in to pay for "Super fast broadband" as part of the previous government's digital white paper.

A new goverment takes office, then proceed to scrap the new 50p per month tax!
Hurrah!

I received a letter yesterday from BT - the only company we are able to rent our line from in our area - who opposed the new broadband tax, they now inform me that they are INCREASING the cost of our line rental by 50p per month.
This is not a "new tax" nor is it a government plan, it will result in more profits for BT who own our line!

BT were kind enough to give an explanation on their letter, it read as follows;

        "We appreciate it's not the kind of news you'll welcome..."

That was it!

Forgive me if I sound a tad miffed, but in May 2010, British Telecom announced pre-tax profits of £1bn!!!
That is £1,000,000,000 - or 1000 MILLION earth pounds to you and me.

Perhaps BT would like to tell all it's customers, why it opposed a new "broadband tax," yet it is happy to increase charges to customers by exactly the same amount, as the new tax would have cost, when these increases go directly into their profits?

I will attempt to list all the things that we - stay at home dads - do, during the six weeks summer school holidays.
To those working and having to go into work everyday, staying at home looking after children, sounds like “easy street,” - as any parent will tell you, if only this were true!

DAY ONE - Saturday 24th July:

Got up at 7am, had some breakfast, then get the sprog up and ready for the day, changing nappy, breakfast, bath, dressed, etc. Got sprog settled and she fell asleep in her chair.
Finally got round to getting myself ready at around 10am, with a quick bath.
Then got the sprog ready to go out, loaded the pushchair and baby bag into the car before taking mum and sprog to next town to the butchers, for the fresh meat/cheese for the following week (as I do every saturday) - was chuffed today, got extra meat in and managed to get £3.76 off as the lads rounded the overall price down (you don’t get discounts or fresh meat straight off a farm at supermarkets!).
From there, it was off to the next town, to pick up the fresh fruit, veg and fish, again this is for a family of four - involving parking up, unloading the sprog into her pushchair, then walking across town to an outdoor market, hand picking all the fresh fruit and veg we would eat and carrying the bags back to the car, stopping on the way at the fresh fish stall, where I am a regular, where I picked up three lovely pieces of fresh cod (Once again the price was rounded down for me - more discount!)

Once at the car it was a return journey home, 30 minutes putting it all away in the fridge/cupboards.
Had to wait for my better half to return from work, so that I could drive my visiting mum home (mum has been staying with us for a week) whilst waiting, I put in a load of washing and hung out the load that had just finished as we got back.
Then I fed the sprog and got her settled again as she had another snooze.
After a quick cup of tea, I loaded the car up with mum’s case and assorted bags.
Home came my better half, a quick goodbye, and I was on the road to Sunderland, 120 miles away.
The time now was around 3pm.

We landed in Sunderland around quarter past 5, had a quick bite to eat, then round to my sisters (who looks just like me, but with more facial hair) to collect mum’s dog. Back round to mum’s house, time for a quick natter then back on the road, for the 120 mile trip home.

Leaving Sunderland at around 9pm, I drove through heavy fog and rain most of the way, finally getting home around quarter past 11.
After a brew and a chat with the wife, it was time for bed.
Quite a busy day, surely the next 5 weeks and 6 days of the school summer holidays are going to be easier than today was?

Why is discrimination permitted by the powers that be and various consumer bodies/quangos that we, the people pay for?

Age shopping discrimination:
I can stand in Greggs on a given day and pay 10% more than the person next to me, for exactly the same food, simply because the person next to me is over 65.
If you are a student, you are charged less than me by most companies websites, because you can enter your student number and receive 10-15% off.
When I buy car insurance, or any other insurance for that matter, we are charged more money because of statistics, ie, my age group statistically have more claims than another age group.

"New" customer  shopping discrimination:
If it is your first time shopping online with a company, nine times out of ten you are given a discount for using the company for the first time, whilst long established or regular customers are paying a higher price.
Insurance is famous for this, "new" customers pay lower premiums because they are "new" whilst existing customers often pay a higher premium.

Statistical shopping discrimination:
We, the people, have absolutely no way of influencing this type of shopping discrimination at all. A company gather statistical information, based on the questions that they themselves ask (by simply wording questions in a way that is more likely to give any required outcome) and then charge a price based on their findings.
Supermarkets are famous for this. They don't just put things on the shelf and try to achieve the best prices, everything they sell has statistical data factored into their prices.
For example, Heinz tinned soup - with a recession forecast to hit hard and winter on its way, the supermarkets pushed up the price of this popular product from around 57p to more than 80p - statistical data confirmed that in times of hardship, people bought more tinned goods (most of their named tinned brands went up) factor in more statistical data regarding more people buying soups in the winter time, once the cold weather hit three weeks later, people were paying premium prices for it, the profits on each tin sold went up by more than 50%.

After a month or so, "sales" came on, dropping the price to around 72p - this was still more than 30% higher than the normal price!

The prices charged using statistical data, have nothing to do with how much a product costs to the company in purchasing, storing, displaying, the product, it's all to do with more profits.
Insurance is another one - How has what I do in my job got anything to do with paying higher prices for my insurance?
The fact is, it hasn't.
It is merely another form of shopping discrimination, why does a civil servant get a lower price than a "manual" worker?
Why does a "company director" pay less for their insurance than a "civil servant" or "skilled" worker?
Next time you are getting insurance quotes online, have a play about with the employment section then recalculate your quote, it's amazing the amount of times it is reduced depending on your job description!

Existing customer shopping discrimination:
There are not many, but some shopping websites have been known to quote a higher price for those people who log in, on the website and then look for goods to buy or those who have previously visited that website, via cookie tracking.
Website visitors who shop anonymously, then log in when it comes to paying have been known to get lower prices,

Making regular customers pay more report

What, if anything, can be done to stop price/shopping discrimination?
By individuals, very little.
This is why these consumer bodies and quangos, that we pay millions to every year, need to start doing their jobs and protecting the customer.

If you go for a job interview and are told that you haven't got the job because you are not retired or a student, then this is age discrimination and illegal - what's the difference in being told to pay more for a product at Greggs, because you are not retired?
Or paying 10% more online when shopping at a website because I am not a student?

A bank/building society cannot recoup losses caused by other customers, by charging a set amount for their charges - this is unenforceable in common law - so why can an insurance company charge me a premium, based on the claims it's had in the past year from other customers?
Why is allowed to get away with charging me higher prices because I do a manual job instead of being a company director?

Two people living in the same house, with the same vehicle, with the same driving record. One person is a regular customer with the insurance company, the other person is joining them for the first time - why is it deemed acceptable for the new customer to pay less for the exact same product?

A price, wether on sale or not, should apply to all customers equally.
All that's happening today, is that we are all victims of shopping discrimination, where sections of the population are being given discounts and this is subsidised by the price paid by everyone else.
The powers that be and the consumer groups (that we pay for) are doing absolutely nothing about it!