Fares Fair and the Audacity of Hope!

On November 1st new EU rules came into force which will require airlines and others advertising ticket prices for flights to include the full cost including fees, charges and taxes upfront. In addition passengers should get the breakdown of the different categories of costs making up the final price:tariff, taxes, airport charges and other fees. We all know the story, a flight is advertised as free or for a €1, but by the time we pay for it the price is €60. Now there are good deals out there and people can get cheap flights. But the problem with this sort of advertising is that it lures people with an initial misleading offer and having gone through the booking process most people just buy rather than start and search again. So instead of booking a flight with another airline for €50, we pay €60 because the initial cost quoted was a €5.

It would be like a supermarket saying we charge 10c for a loaf of bread, but you have to pay 20c for the car park, 10c for the trolley, 10c for using the check-out. Up to now many consumers didn't have the detailed price information they needed up front to make an informed choice and decision. Price transparency is a key component of any consumer contract, so these new rules are welcome. However there will still be wriggle room for the airlines, some have introduced a number of discretionary charges such as check in and baggage charges, so it will still be difficult in some cases to know the full cost until consumers gets to the point of purchase. Consumers will have to factor these extra costs into account.

The other positive measure being introduced is that airlines will not be able to impose charges on consumers without their express consent. Up to November 1st airlines such as Aer Lingus, Aer Arann and Ryanair have automatically included insurance on flights booked online, requiring the customer "to opt out" if they wanted to exclude an extra such as insurance from their purchase. I have come across cases where the consumer was not aware that they were paying for insurance or thought they were required to buy insurance. Obviously its a matter for each consumer to decide, but do you really need to pay insurance on a flight from Dublin to London? The merit of many of these insurance policies is questionable in my view. From now on the websites of all airlines should be designed so that consumers have "to opt in" to order and pay for insurance and or other extras if they want them.

The key thing now is to ensure that these new rules are enforced. In the first instance that's the responsibility of the Department of Transport and I assume the National Consumer Agency, but also us as consumers to report if we find the new rules are being breached.

I also see that the EU Commission has launched a website for consumers where they can get advice on and report what they consider are unfair commercial practices. Looks like a good initiative.

I cannot leave the blog this week without a mention of events in the US. Well as my friends know I am a bit of a political and election junkie. Watch and enjoy elections and politics from all over the world, and in keeping with habit since 1992 (then all I had was BBC Radio 4) stayed up for the elections. Apart from watching the historic election of Barack Obama, I was keeping an eye on the Senate and House races, would the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and would the 2006 Democrat surprises hold on? My friend Dominic tells me that there is a technical term for this affliction called Psephology not sure if there is any cure! I had been keeping an eye on North Carolina since the summer and was really pleased to see Kay Hagen win over Elizabeth Dole, who ran a nasty and negative campaign, especially in the end.


Inspiring stuff

The thing that inspired me most about Obama was the triumph of hope over fear and optimism over negativity. That got me thinking about consumer advocacy where there is a danger of always being negative, of always knocking, of always being the hurler on the ditch. Yes it is important to highlight deficiencies, but consumer organisations and advocates also need to be positive and put forward solutions and proposals. We are all too familiar with the naysayers, the hurlers on the ditch, the bores who come to meetings, never have a good thing to say, and just criticise and who stay talking when there is nothing left to say. These are the sort of people we all stop listening to after a while, so like people, organisations need to avoid falling into this nexus of negativity or else we won't be taken seriously after a while too.


Classic Naysayers, but at least they were funny unlike some I know!

Watchdog teeth and fake grass!!!

I have been critical of the Financial Regulator for being too timid in the past. However I am happy to acknowledge when they prove me wrong by their recent decision concerning Quinn Insurance. I don't know the full details of the case but from press reports it would appear that the Financial Regulator investigated and came to the conclusion that regulations were breached and issued quite a hefty fine. Leaving aside the particular case my view is that such action sends out a strong message to a very powerful sector of our society, i.e. the Financial Services Sector that they are not above the law.

The challenge of being involved in any consumer organisation is that the consumer generally thinks you are too soft on the vested interests, while the vested interests take a radically different view and use all opportunities, both directly and indirectly to undermine you and your organisation. And of course the indirect approach is more difficult to counter. In the United States there is a growing phenomenon where big corporations fund individuals or groups who establish organisations through various means (usually one person outfits) who portray themselves as advocates for a cause when in fact their primary goal is to undermine a campaign or cause by spreading misinformation and muddying the waters. Some examples are fake environmental groups funded by the oil industry that contradict the views of environmental organisations. All you need is one person and organisation with a plausible name and a website and hey presto you are in business. What these fake organisations do is called astroturfing, to distinguish them from real "grassroots" organisations. And it may not always be easy to flush them out, but I suppose key questions to determine their bone fides would be, who is running and behind the organisation, does it have a real "membership", do they have any conflicts of interest and are these declared and how is the operation being funded and by whom?


Astroturfing at play!

It came to mind when I was asked about CAI by a consumer who thought we were too soft on the banks and the financial services sector. I outlined what CAI had consistently called for and I also informed him that I didn't have any bank shares nor do I work in the financial services sector. But I understand his frustration as the banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies hold huge sway in our society and have huge influence on our political system. The most recent example was the bank guarantee scheme, which had the fingerprints of the banks all over it and as a result it was great for the banks but bad for the taxpayer and the consumer. That nexus of the political and economic world was exposed in the tribunals, where companies make donations to politicians and political parties "to support the democratic process". They may be acting within the law, but the perception (it may well be false) among the public is that they are paying for access and influence and also improving their chances of getting state contracts. On the other hand CAI and many other campaigning organisations have to work very hard on limited resources to get a meeting and a hearing. As we have seen time and time again those who make donations have easy access and sometimes informal means by which to influence decisions.

I admitted to my acquaintance that it is definitely not a level playing pitch, but things are better now. There is more independent regulation now of a number of sectors. I think Joe Meade in the Financial Ombudsman's office sets a good example, he is willing to take on the big boys on behalf of the ordinary consumer. Without him does anyone really think the average consumer would have a hope of taking on the AIBs, Davy Stockbrokers and Quinn Insurances and any other large financial company. I have no problem with actors in the broader consumer movement railing against the actions of individual regulators (as I have done), but what surprises me is that some appear to be opposed to the idea of strong, effective and independent regulation. That is playing into the hands of the vested interests who want to retain or return to self and weak regulation. I recently wrote on the need to revise the regulatory regime being proposed for the legal profession, because what is on offer is not much of an improvement on the unsatisfactory process we have at the present time. We have a long way to go and a hard fight ahead to get real and effective regulation for the consumer on all fronts, but it is a battle worth fighting for.

A French Lesson for Irish Consumers?

I really wish I had paid more attention during french classes at school. I was over in Paris for two days this week attending a seminar and meeting with some old friends and like every time I am there my lack of french comes home to roost. OK I can order a beer or find out where the toilets are, but once it gets more complicated than that, like having to ask directions I have to revert to English.

Could we as consumers learn in the debris of the financial crisis here at home from the French as well. Yes some of their banks have come a cropper on the international markets, but primarily for investing in toxic assets from the US and of course there have been now three cases of rogue traders doing serious damage to the balance sheet. The most famous of course has been Jérôme Kerviel who it is alleged cost the Société Générale bank over €4bn. On Friday when I was there another scandal broke concerning Caisse d'Epargne when four traders cost the company €600m, which given the numbers being thrown around in recent weeks sounds like small change. I had never heard of the bank before, but happened to pass what looked like one of their older branches when I was walking home from dinner on Friday night and took a photo.

The French mortgage market from what I understand is radically different from ours and that in the UK and as a result French consumers are insulated from the worst excesses of the current turmoil, where individuals and families are under terrible financial pressure with rising debts and home repossession. Most home loans are given out on long term fixed interest rates, they don't have the plethora of variable and tracker mortgages that were so popular here. And by long term I don't mean 3-5 years, I mean 20-25 years. That means that French mortgages holders know how much the mortgage will cost them many years in advance. Unlike their Irish counterparts they do not hang on the words of Jean-Claude Trichet as to whether interest rates will go up or down.

When you think about for a while, it is a bit crazy to tie the cost of our debt on our most valuable physical asset, i.e. our home to the vagaries of the financial markets and the deliberations of the European Central Bank. A 1% rise in interest rates has the potential to cause real misery for many homeowners. I suppose its all very well in good times, but the weaknesses in the system are plain to see in the current climate. That's not to say that the French system is perfect, it is much more difficult to get a home loan there, so many people here would not have been able to buy a home if they lived in France.

And of course then there is the cost, would it cost more if people could only purchase a long term fixed rate mortgage compared to the option of a short term variable mortgage? Obviously each case is different, but while in the short term the French mortgage might cost more, in the long term it would appear to cost less and of course give much more security and peace of mind. That brings me to an interesting conclusion in a report on the UK Mortgage market (Miles report) that examined the issue of fixed long term mortgages. It found that consumers really only focused on the immediate short term cost of the mortgage. Can I make the repayments in the initial months? In the UK they rarely looked at the overall cost or the cost if interest rates were to rise when taking out a mortgage, in most cases it is the same here and I can understand why. People assumed that mortgage rates would remain stable and the prices would keep going up. The lenders are supposed to highlight potential pitfalls to borrowers, but I imagine in recent years when money was being thrown at people and most people thought the party would go on forever, this was largely overlooked. However necessity is the mother of invention and therefore it might be an opportune time for Government to examine the pros and cons of encouraging the take-up of long term fixed mortgages here.

PS: The Bank Guarantee Scheme was published on Wednesday, I was on The Breakfast Show on Newstalk on Thursday highlighting how this was a great deal for the banks, but a bad deal for taxpayers and consumers. Clause 44 says "A covered institution shall not pass on the costs of the guarantee to its customers in an unwarranted manner". This is vague, meaningless and unenforceable. Minister Lenihan says that the costs won't be passed on, but once the dust settles in a few months, I wouldn't be so sure.

Consumers must not be short changed!

All I can say is wow...what an amazing week. Little did I know when I attended a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on Monday afternoon at 5pm about the Budget about what was going on behind the scenes and the astonishing announcement made early on Tuesday morning.

Most people agree that this was a bold move that appears to have restored some sense of stability in the Irish Banking system in the short term. However none of us know what the impact will be on the banking sector, the economy and most importantly from my perspective on the consumer. A lot has been written about it and of course we all acknowledge that the global credit crunch played a role. But the Government, regulators and banks have to face up to the reality that much of the problem was home grown as well. The Irish banks shovelled out huge loans to developers and builders in the past 5 years and it was the concerns of other banks about the exposure here that led to the crisis on Monday. Morgan Kelly from UCD had a very good article about this in the Irish Times on Thursday. With Charlie Weston in the Independent leading with a story telling us the banks could be owed €112bn by developers.

Despite the fact that not a cent has been paid by the state because of the guarantee, it is already or very soon going to cost the taxpayer and consumer. As the latest exchequer returns show the Government will have to borrow billions to balance the books, with the guarantee the cost of this credit will shoot up. The other suggestion coming from sections of the financial services sector is that charges and fees will have to increase. This would be totally unacceptable. It was the taxpayers who threw the banks a lifeline in their hour of need, not the shareholders or investors, so is our reward to be higher charges and fees, while those who created this mess, the fat cats at the top get off scot free?


No George Baileys here!!

The Government needs to do 3 things to protect consumers as a result of their decision to guarantee and bail out the banks. Firstly once the dust has settled they must conduct an independent investigation into why this emergency bailout was necessary. Is the current regulatory regime appropriate? Does the Central Bank and Financial Regulator have the necessary powers and did they act appropriately?

Secondly the Government must legislate or regulate to ensure there is no attempt to pass on the cost of this in the form of increased bank charges and fees. It would be all to easy for the banks to pass on the costs of this to the consumer, as we have seen with the airlines when the price of oil went up. Therefore any bank which signs up to the gaurantee scheme would forfeit the right to increase these costs. This can be easily done as all charge and fee increases are already regulated by section 149 of the consumer credit act.

Thirdly the Government must legislate to put the key provisions of the Consumer Protection Code on a statutory footing. The days of "principles based" and light handed regulation are over. We need strong regulatory action to protect consumers, who do not get bail outs or guarantees when they run into financial difficulties.

If the Government fail in this regard, it will be the taxpayers and consumers whi will feel short changed in this whole sorry saga.

Would a VAT tax holiday on electricity make cents!!!!

I see that EU Finance Ministers failed to agree measures to cut VAT on a range of services at a meeting today. Inflation and prices are rising across the EU and jobs and spending are under pressure, so obviously some members states see a VAT or sales tax cut as one way to cut prices and stimulate spending and job creation. As we know from the recent Lisbon Treaty debate any change would require unanimity.

VAT or Value Added Tax is a levy on goods and services, essentially a tax on consumer spending. The higher the net price of an item, and the higher the VAT rate, the greater the final purchase price. At almost €14.5 billion in 2007, VAT made up 31% of Exchequer tax revenue. Therefore VAT is an important source of Government revenue, which makes removing or reducing VAT much more difficult, particularly in the current economic environment. And of course changes to VAT rules may require EU approval further complicating any proposal to change rates. Before the last election the Greens proposed a cut in VAT instead of a cut in income tax, pointing out that in fact compared to income tax, VAT affects everyone. And as we know as electricity, gas and petrol prices increase so does the actual amount of VAT (and the amount the Government receives) we have to pay increase.

It's hard to know if an across the board cut in VAT rates would lead to lower prices. Charlie McCreevey cut the top VAT rate by 1% to 20% when Minister for Finance, but one year later reversed his decision on the basis that the savings had not been passed on. That's a big problem, how could the state and consumer know for sure that any cut is definitely passed onto the consumer. However there is one bill which the vast majority of households have to pay on which the VAT cost is clear and if it was cut or removed then there would be an immediate saving to all households. And that bill, the ESB bill of course, we all pay 13.5% VAT. Electricity prices have been soaring, rising by 18% just last August. This is going to affect many households over the coming months, people will have to forgo other essential items or cut back on lighting and heating. The Government did move to increase benefits for those in receipt of the Electricity Allowance which is good, but this only benefits those in receipt of this social welfare payment or about 358,000 households or 25% of the total. What about the many households who won't qualify but will really feel the strain of the higher cost of electricity? Those in employment don't qualify for this payment, so households where the main wage earner is on a low income get no support to meet these increased costs.


Fox News Analyst agrees with Gas Tax Proposal...must be good then!!

I think it would be worth exploring the possibility of a VAT tax holiday on electricity costs, basically a decision to reduce or abolish VAT for perhaps a year in the hope that electricity costs come down. This is akin to the gas tax holiday proposed in the US. The benefits of a VAT holiday is that it is a short term measure designed to ease the pain now, leaving the option open to Government to reintroduce VAT when hopefully the price of electricity comes down as global oil prices come down. This measure could save the average household about €100 annually. This is not as complicated as a general VAT reduction in that there is only one supplier (ESB) which is state owned and as I outlined the consumer would definitely see the benefit as the price of electricity is set and outlined clearly on every bill. What do you think?

Putting calories on the menu and on the agenda!

Back from my holidays in the Middle East, missing the sun and lack of rain already! I like my food, but tend to stick to the tried and trusted, but was a little more adventurous than normal on my travels. I have eaten hummus before, but over there they serve it with everything, so I ate a lot of it. One thing I really liked probably because it is full of sugar and very sweet was Kanafeh. And not just any old kanafeh, but I got it from a food stall in Nablus, the home of kanafeh. It was only gorgeous although I am sure the calorie count would frighten me. Probably something that is perfect as a rare treat, but certainly not for consumption every day.

Earlier this year the authorities in New York brought in new regulations requiring restaurants and fast food outlets to put the calorie count of all meals on their menus. Unsurprisingly the restaurant owners are not too happy with these new regulations and have gone to court to have them struck down. I can understand their fears, but surely the consumer is entitled to this information. It seems the vast majority of consumers underestimate the quantity of calories that are contained in certain meals and dishes. We all know that fast food should not be consumed every day, but do people know that the calorie count of many meals can actually be equal to or more than our recommended daily calorie intake allowance....unless you are Michael Phelps of course.


Calorie Shock!

In fact it seems that some meals and dishes which we assume are healthy can in fact have a lot more calories than we think, such as meals called salads. And of course this does not only apply to fast food outlets, it applies to restaurants of all types. In general most people know the score on fast food, its quick, tasty and fills you up, but not something to eat regularly. However for other meals and dishes, we don't really know, we might think they are really healthy, but they may actually contain lots of calories. With obesity related conditions and diseases on the rise, giving consumers more information on the calorie content of the food they order has to be good. It doesn't mean that consumers will eat out or order less, consumers may just order smaller portions, different meals and dishes or cut down on their food intake for the rest of the day.

The Economist article (see link above) highlights how some restaurants have adapted in New York and are cutting portion sizes and calorie content, as well as cutting their own costs. And one company Le Pain Quotidien thinks it has profited by adapting quickly to the new rules and are planning to provide information on calories in cities where it is not required by law yet.

I have no doubt some people will call this another attack by the nanny state, in the same way that they attack any measure or proposal to better protect or assist the consumer. All these regulations are doing is assisting the consumer to make an informed choice. Personally I support these new regulations, I think it will be only a matter of time before they are introduced in Ireland.

All hands to the pumps!

Motorists are finding the current increases in petrol/diesel prices a big drain on their income. I know to fill up my tank it is now costing well over €53 compared to €40 a year ago. The official statistics confirm this with diesel prices increasing a massive 65% in the last 4 years and petrol prices increasing by almost 40%.

Despite repeated calls from CAI and others to Government to do their bit by reducing either excise or VAT on petrol/diesel they have steadfastly refused to do so. The irony of course in all this is that high petrol/diesel prices are in the interests of Government because the higher the price the greater the amount of VAT revenue generated for the Exchequer.

However given the huge hole fuel costs are burning in all our incomes, it is not enough for Government to sit back and tell us to shop around, they have a duty to assist us in that regard. Therefore there are three things the should be doing (which I am calling Fuelwatch Ireland) to assist motorists with high fuel costs and to drive greater competition at the pumps! As a preface I want to say that I am in favour of measures to car journeys and oil dependency, but that cannot be achieved overnight and we all don't live within walking distance of public transport, so in the meantime something must be done.

It could consist of the following aspects.

A statutory fuel price database where all service stations in the state would be legally required to register their current prices so that consumers could check online where they could get the cheapest prices in their area. Fuelwatch Ireland would be based on the very successful fuelwatch database in Western Australia which is now being expanded across Australia. Legislation would be required to ensure all service stations comply with the scheme.

There are a number of websites already which provide information on petrol and diesel prices and those running these websites must be commended for the assistance and information they provide. However since there is no obligation on the stations to cooperate with these websites and they depend on information being sent in by motorists and in some cases the prices can be out of date. A statutory website would include all stations and would ensure that the information provided was up to date. Like the grocery price surveys, this would assist consumers to shop around and get the best price. It works very well in Australia, I cannot see any reason why it couldn't work here. It would be quick, easy and cheap to do.

I also think we need to investigate the price of fuel at the pump. I would really like to see the Government commission a study to investigate whether fuel prices in Ireland have increased in line with global prices or if price increases have surpassed global oil prices. Also would be useful to examine the extent to which price decreases have been passed onto the consumer at the pump as quickly as price increases appear to be. I have no evidence to indicate that price reductions are not being passed on, but given the significant fluctuations in price in the last year, it is important to make sure that the current volatile market situation is not being exploited further.

And finally I think we could assist motorists to maximize fuel efficiency when using their car which would be good not only for the pocket, but also kinder on the environment. I am not an expert on this, but the Government could develop and distribute practical information to all motorists on the national vehicle register on how they can reduce their fuel costs. All register vehicle owners could be sent a leaflet and this information could also be put online. While this leaflet would outline the options for reducing car use, it would also provide information on how motorists could reduce fuel use even while using their car. It would cover areas such as servicing, speed and driving patterns, tyre type etc where consumers could reduce their fuel use which we don't always think about in relation to reducing costs, well I don't anyhow. This could be easily done with the assistance of motoring experts.

Basically in my humble opinion it's time for the Government to do something to assist motorists given the high cost of fuel. They can't reduce the price of a barrel of oil, but they make a contribution and these proposals would go some way to allievate all our pain at the pumps!


Petrol protests Indonesian style!