Be thrifty by being organised

One of my biggest failings, is being unorganised. As anyone who knows me will tell you I am forever running out of time.

Being frugal/thrifty, can be helped by organising your time more effectively. It could be shopping a month earlier for christmas presents or christmas food, allowing more time for a job, not spreading yourself too thin.

Another problem thrown up by my lack of organisation, is the time I get with sprog2.
All too often, I end up running around like a headless chicken and I miss everything around me.
One of the joys of looking after a baby, is the escape from the "rat race" - I had to nip out for a loaf last week, I walked down to the shop rather than drive, as it was bang on school run time, I walked past the long queue of cars of drivers, sat with their noses up against the windscreen, waiting for a gap in the traffic to get out or another driver to get on to the roundabout, etc.
I smiled on the inside, picking the loaf up, then walked back, safe in the knowledge that I am not a slave to the rush hour every morning and night, wasting money on petrol to sit and watch the bumper of the car in front as the minutes tick by before the daily grind starts.

Of course, I am very very lucky to be able to do this, I realise that, but I could smell the fresh autumn air, I looked up in the trees and the sunshine passing through them, etc, is this the kind of thing we should strive for in life?
Careers are all well and good, but do we really need to run around doing mundane tasks, with less support as business squeezes another pound of profit out of us, to line the pockets of the suits upstairs?
I don't recall at school being told that if we work hard, keep our heads down, we will be able to grind our lives out, with the occasional night out, until we pass on?
Sprog2 benefits (I hope) from having me around, I could not palm her off to a child minder whilst I run around trying to earn enough to pay for the childcare.

I know of a couple of people who work fulltime just to cover childcare costs, why not just look after your own children?
Why not spend time with them instead of at work?
When you are a child, you have time by the bucket load, everything moves in slow motion, until you reach 16, then it gets serious and the chain-gang like work to live routine kicks in and you are stuck.

By organising my time better, I find I not only benefit frugally more from being better prepared, but my family benefit, from the quality time I get to spend with them.
In return I am more relaxed, not stressed out and I am not wasting money by sitting in a car chasing my tail trying to get to a job that lines the pockets of others.

Come the special times, halloween, bonfire night, christmas, etc, I should be better prepared and as I am better prepared, I will also save money by not running around at last minute.

Andrew Strong, Chief Executive of the AA

I have looked around online for your email address and contact details. Many websites state they have your contact details, but on visiting them, they do not.

Andrew Strong wrote to me via an automated letter, so here is my reply.

"When a breakdown occurs, they can be inconvenient and expensive, especially when parts need replacing. Fortunately, because you have breakdown repair cover as part of your AA membership, you saved £74.99 when your car broke down in July 2010.

We hope you were satisfied with the service you received and that it met the standards you expect from the AA."

Actually Andrew, I am not happy with the service given since taking out my membership, here's why;

Breakdown repair cover enables me to claim up to five times per year for repairs, when I bought it with my AA membership, I was told it would "cover all non wearable parts."
This is not the case!

Breakdown number one - My vehicle would not move forwards, I called out the AA, they found that the brake cylinders had leaked, jamming the brakes on in the process.
Unfortunately, as the mechanic was attempting to free the brakes up, he inadvertantly knocked off my immobiliser. I was then towed to my local garage to have the brakes fixed.
Unfortunately, for more than two months, the garage could not repair the brakes as the immobiliser was now broken and they could not drive the vehicle into the garage to fix the fault.
I could not find any garage nearby that could repair the immobiliser, even dealers in the make of vehicle would not repair it.
Finally after around 10 weeks and four visits by various auto electricians, I found a garage that could repair the immobiliser.
On contacting the AA, I was offered a tow from where the vehicle was, to the garage that could repair the immobiliser, as a "goodwill gesture" - which I later found out was not a goodwill gesture at all, but used up one of my five call outs (resulting in any future call outs costing me £99 each!)

The garage fixed my immobiliser at a personal cost to myself of 10 weeks without a vehicle and £110.
The work on the seized brakes was more than expected, as the wheel cylinders had leaked into the brake drums and contaminated the brake shoes, which must be replaced as well.
I contacted the AA and was told that they cannot cover the cost of any brake work (which is advertised with the letter I am replying to here) as brake shoes are wearable parts, add to this the labour charges for taking the drum off and cleaning it of brake fluid, also not covered by my AA breakdown repair policy (even though the brake shoes have to be removed to fit the new wheel cylinders which the AA were paying for anyway!)
The total bill for repairing the brake cylinders and cables, plus replacing contaminated brake shoes, came to £320 - of which the AA would only  pay out £185 (£210 minus the £25 excess) leaving me another £135 out of pocket.

Breakdown number two - I nipped out to get some petrol and returned home. Not 15 minutes later I had to nip out again, but when I went to start the vehicle, nothing, it was dead.
Out came the AA, they checked various things and concluded it was a battery fault. The battery was tested and said to "be fine"
Booster cables were attached and the engine was started, I was told to take it for a run to get some power into the battery, which I did.

Breakdown number three - Just two weeks later, the same problem occured, wouldn't start. Out came the AA and the battery was tested, completely dead, cells had gone, a new battery was required. The words of the AA man were, "I don't know why they didn't change your battery last time we came out, it's obviously faulty as it's not putting out enough amps as some of the cells have packed in!"
I paid the £25 excess for a new battery, which I was told was £125 to buy new (I know they are only £80-£90 new) which is not the true price, as Andrew's letter confirms that they are £100.

I received a letter some weeks later warning myself that I only had one call out left and all call outs after this would incur a hefty charge.
I called the AA, after being passed around four departments over 30 minutes on the phone, I finally got through to the right person.
Call out number two, was not a call out, it was "a goodwill gesture" in the respect that the AA had broken my immobiliser during call out number one.
Call out number four would not have been required, if on call out number three, the AA had done their job correctly and replaced the faulty part, which your patrol man completely missed.

So the reply to Andrew Strong, chief executive of the AA, is no I am not satisfied with the service. What are you going to do about it?

UPDATE:
AA contact details found so far;

The automobile association - AA
Head office,
Fanum House,
Basing view,
Basingstoke,
Hampshire.
RG21 4EA.
(Unchecked, please let me know if it is inaccurate)

Complaints addresses and procedures:
http://www.theaa.com/aboutaa/complaints.html

As yet, I am still unable to find an email for Andrew Strong.

Car insurance costs record rise say the AA

Car insurance premiums have risen by a new record amount say the AA.
Really? Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious!

The reason the AA say, is because of another surge in injury claims - utter rubbish!

My insurance more than doubled with direct line, when I rang then to ask why, they didn't have a clue, even their own advisors stated, "There must be something wrong with your quote!"

Pricing by discrimination for vehicle insurance is plain wrong.

The price of your car insurance used to be based upon your vehicle engine size, modifications, crime in the area where you live, where your car is kept and your individual past record.
Today, your car insurance price is based upon demographics, your job description, if you purchase on the internet or by phone, statistics that you cannot influence like if you are male or female, how much more "likely" you are to have an accident and on other people's past record/claims. This is discrimination and it should be stopped!

"Young men are twice as likely to be involved in incidents than young women." - say the AA - could that be because there are more men than women driving?
"The AA blames lawyers for exacerbating the problem by taking a 40% cut of personal injury claims." - so why aren't the courts rejecting claims for costs then?

When I asked around as to why insurance premiums had doubled, despite never having a single accident in 14 years, I was told, "It's because we had a bad winter and had to pay out lots of claims!" - a fact lost on them all, was that other people's claims are nothing to do with me, they shouldn't be allowed to base my price on someone elses actions - I asked them to name one other single business that is allowed to base their prices (for a legal requirement) on the actions of others - they could not.

To reduce the cost of car insurance, the AA has some (non) handy tips:

  • Call firms with cheaper quotes, to see how the premium might be reduced
  • Opt for a higher excess - the amount of a claim a driver pays before the insurance kicks in
  • Look for insurers who specialise in young drivers
  • Buy a cheaper, smaller car
  • They are about as helpful as a nest of wasps!

    One self proclaimed "expert" who runs an internet business, via his "helping people forums" and is all over the TV and radio promoting the information that people visiting his website post, claiming it to be his own, even suggested that people lie about their job to get their price down - whilst at the same time receiving at least £60 per policy taken out using his website links!

    The price comparison websites have to take part of the blame for the increases in insurance premiums - for every policy taken out online they receive £60 and upwards, from the insurance companies.
    The customer may pay no different a price when visiting these websites, but their premiums are increased to pay for the huge commissions price comparison websites make - plus the individual's details are analysed and sold on to other companies for profit - there's a reason why they are all over the television with adverts in a recession, they are making big money from links to insurance companies!
    One highly advertised price comparison website was even set up, using a loan from esure!
    When asked just how "independant" price comparison websites are, they tell us that they are stand alone companies, if you believe that you'll believe anything!

    Another rip off from car insurance companies is the two car policy - they will double your premiums and tell you that "your no claims bonus cannot be used on another vehicle"
    Ask them why not, you can't drive two cars at the same time, so the risk remains exactly the same, they'll tell you no claims discount can only be used on one vehicle - point out that any no claims discount, is applicable to the person, NOT the vehicle!
    I know of not one single car/van that has it's own no claims discount, if they did, insurance companies would go bust over night, as most vehicles don't have a single claim in their lifetime.

    Every year at renewal time, the industry come with yet another cock and bull story to part us from our hard earned cash, explaining it away with bluster and waffle.
    When the facts of individual circumstances are pointed out, they don't have an answer.
    They just give us the age old fob off, "I'm sorry it's the system!"

    Car insurance is a legal requirement, the government of the day takes huge tax revenues from us on every policy, I wonder why the powers that be are not that keen to address the issue and stop the blatent ripping off of the British people?

    When the Financial ombudsman service are not impartial

    With hundreds of thousands of individuals putting their trust in the independance of the Financial Ombudsman's service (FOS) every working day, to resolve their disputes, at the very least, after the months to deal with a case, you would expect them to be impartial and fair.

    I had a reason to believe their own paperwork, about their "aims" and sense of "fair play" - until I looked around for some information.

    The complaint I submitted was for payment protection insurance (PPI) - 10 months later it finally reached an adjudicator. He contacted me, asked about the employment status and said he'd be in touch soon.
    He didn't uphold our complaint, so being the sad type, I did some digging around.

    Having a moan am I?
    Not likely, the following information shows that the FOS are not an impartial service at all!

    Car dealership sells PPI - they have to have all the paperwork up to date for the FSA, sell it in an honest and fair manner. Should they be late submitting paperwork or it is incorrect, they risk a fine. They have to pay the FSA fees for keeping their staff up to date with FSA rules and guidelines.
    At constant risk that if a complaint comes in about their conduct in selling the PPI, then the FSA could turn up and audit all their paperwork. The same applies if a complaint against them is upheld, the FSA could just turn up to audit other sales of a similar type.
    They have nothing to hide though, so it wouldn't be a problem right?

    Enter a new type of company - the "Principal company"
    This company is accredited by the FSA to train dealership staff (and others) in the laws and selling rules of the FSA. This company pay the FSA a fee.
    For a fee, the dealership join this company, it's a very attractive proposition, as this principal company advertise;

  • No 6 monthly returns to the FSA or the fines for late submission
  • No risk of an audit by the FSA
  • No need to buy added Professional Indemnity Insurance

  • Any comebacks or complaints, the dealership refer all the paperwork to the "principal company" and they will answer questions on your behalf, when the FOS come knocking.

    Yes, you guessed it, our complaint is against a dealership - now known as an "appointed representitive" company
    Yes, they pay a fee to a "principal company" who are a third party company now answering questions about the sale of PPI, even though they cannot give any spoken answers, (not that it's required of them as the FOS didn't ask them any questions!)

    The FOS adjudicator dealing with our case has around 20 case files all over his desk, he failed to spot several breaches of the ICOBS rules that are applicable, made no mention of the incorrect information filled out in a "demands and needs statement checklist" by the senior manager of the dealership, and completely missed the fact that the PPI policy was said to cover against unemployment for a full five years - when in fact, in the most beneficial way to the customer, it would only cover against unemployment for a maximum of 39 months (as opposed to the 60 months of five year cover).

    Now the fun part...
    The FOS staff are said to receive a bonus for quick resolution of a case (not sure if this still applies).
    The FOS judge all cases before them based on FSA guidelines and laws, with the cost charged to the "principal company"
    As an accredited training company of the FSA, the "principal company" are not audited by the FSA, neither are the dealership.

    So in our case, we were told by the FOS that unless we had recorded the high pressure sales patter (that lasted more than an hour, whilst we only went down to "sign for the car") the FOS could only examine the ticklists provided and make a judgement from that.

    I'll put a freedom of information request into the FOS I thought, to see how many times they have found against an accredited training company ("principal company") that represent dealerships, etc, and trains company staff on behalf of the FSA (the same FSA that receive fees from the "principal company" and whose rules/laws, the FOS are saying they try to uphold) - No I won't, as conveniently, the FOS are not covered by the freedom of information act!
    OK I'll ask them outright, how many times they have ruled against them... "We are not in a position to give out that information as we are not covered by the freedom of information act!"

    Let's try another track, lets ask the FSA directly, how many of these "principal companies" exist, who are exempt from the FSA auditing them?
    They couldn't tell me, roughly, they guessed (over two days of being asked) around 612.
    Each "principal company" pays the FSA a fee and they can have anything from one to five thousand and more, "appointed representative" companies (in this case the dealership) under each single "principal company" - who of course, all pay them a fee and are again, exempt from audit by the FSA.

    I checked the "principal company" involved in our case against the FSA register for action taken.
    This company have hundreds of "appointed representative" companies on their books all paying fees (ie, car dealerships) and have had hundreds more on their books in the past 5 years, since the FSA legislation came into effect.
    Take a wild guess how many times, during those five years (and the hundreds of companies under their protection from scrutiny), that the FSA have had to get involved with any action against the "principal company" in our case?

    NOT ONE SINGLE TIME!!!!

    So I contacted the FSA and asked them could they name any other accredited training company so I could check them against the FSA register... The FSA refused to do so.

    Open, honest, fair, impartial?
    If you have the misfortune to raise a complaint with the FOS and the company you complain against are an "appointed representative" company, of a "principal company" - then first off, don't hold your breathe, secondly, the chances of you actually having your complaint upheld (against an FSA accredited training company) are nil.

    The only possible winning outcome is if you had the foresight to record the sales pitch you were given at the time, and the chances are you were told it was for something mundane, like signing a form, before they hit you with the high pressure sales pitch, so you wouldn't have been expecting it.

    The financial ombudsman service are not impartial, they receive funding from companies who have a complaint raised against them, the FSA receive funding from the "principal companies" which train "appointed representative" companies on behalf of the FSA.

    The FSA and the FOS cannot show that they have ever ruled against an FSA accredited company, ever.

    Tradesmen need to get in the real world!

    I have an absolute gutfull this week, of "tradesmen" quoting times and money for jobs, that are a complete joke!

    I always compare what they will charge with the better half's wage - who does a job that only four companies in the world can do. Constantly in demand, her job has taken her all over the world over the years.
    If I spent five years training, I doubt that I would be able to do her job, the same would apply without any shodow of a doubt, to so called tradesmen.

    Rendering job:
    I asked a plasterer working nearby, if he was available for a "foreigner" (Doing a job for cash in hand payment) that he could do in his spare time.
    "Yes" came the reply, "I do them with my mate and we charge £100 per day each"
    He had a quick look around to see how much the half a house would need and told me roughly, it would take around four days.

    Some would say this is good value.... they would be wrong!
    The better half would have to work overtime, after her 40 hour week and on a Sunday, to get £14 an hour BEFORE the taxman takes his cut of 33% (For a specialist trained job)
    The tradesmen who can plaster, expect to be paid more than £1 per hour more, for working on a Saturday and having me labour for them.
    It would take our lass more than three weeks wages to almost break even, with what the plasterers want for four days work.

    How is this not a complete joke?

    The company the plasterers work for don't pay them anywhere near £15 per hour and the cost of the full job to me the customer would be almost the same price overall, than any so called "foreigner" that these two jokers propose!

    Rewiring:
    I was quoted by a local electrician, that it would take four lads to come in and blitz the job, probably taking around four days to complete a full rewire. Price quoted was close to £4000!
    That's a staggering £28 per hour per each of the four tradesmen I was told would be required!

    I enquired through my contacts on the actual cost of wire - 100 metre rolls of twin and earth etc (100 metres is the maximum recommended length for a ring main, ie, all the downstairs plugs)
    The cost per roll of wire would be around £67 each - surely there must be some mistake?
    £67 per roll?
    No mistake, roughly four rolls would be needed for main sockets/lights. etc. If I am generous and add on two rolls to cover any other wiring required, this brings the total cost for the wiring to £402 - a huge gap between the cost of wire and the price quoted of almost £4000 I'm sure you'll agree.

    These tradesmen want wages, for four days, which would almost equal a months wage for our lass!
    This quote is even more of a joke, as we don't have any ceilings, all wiring is open so there would be no floor boards to lift, just a pair of step ladders is required.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not doubting that these tradesmen have worked hard and learned their chosen trade. I am not doubting their skills are up to scratch, but these quotes belong in a joke book!
    Many will say that the tradesmen need to make a living, but this is just greed, plain and simple.

    In the example of the plasterers - when we built the extention, our friend who is a roofer, ripped out, rebuilt and repaired the old roof and beams. They then fitted all the new beams, fitted all the new felt and then carried and laid two pallets of new roof tiles and reused half of the old tiles, charging me around the same money as both plasterers want for four days work, putting on a scratch coat and render.