Rail fines and prosecutions handed out in spite of passengers buying a ticket are being questioned following consumer anger

Rail passengers threatened with fines and even prosecution by train guards – despite buying a ticket – have called on the rail passenger watchdog to challenge their legality amid growing consumer anger.

Guardian Money has been contacted by rail passengers who boarded the “wrong” train on the advice of platform staff, only for the guard to insist that, rather than upgrading their fare, they must buy a new ticket costing in some cases hundreds of pounds.

Next week consumer watchdog Passenger Focus will publish a report calling for a change in the way train companies treat passengers, following a spate of incidents reported in Guardian Money. Passenger Focus will argue that the way passengers buy tickets has changed dramatically in recent years and the rules need to be updated. It is also expected to say train staff have to start taking a more common-sense approach to people who have bought tickets and have simply made a mistake. So far it has ruled out a legal challenge.

Currently if you have an advance ticket to, say, Newcastle and are booked on a certain train, the ticket is only valid for that service. If, say, your baby was sick all over you as you were due to leave, forcing you to get a later train, the guard can make you buy a new ticket – even if the train is empty.

In other cases, passengers on the right train but who were unable to show a ticket or a railcard left at home – but have proof of purchase – complained they were treated as though they were fare evaders, and in some cases threatened with prosecution.

Regular train users have questioned the legality of these “penalties” and asked whether their validity should be challenged in the courts.

Guardian Money was recently contacted by GC from London. Wanting to travel from Gloucester to Manchester last December, he’d bought a ticket using thetrainline.com. When he arrived at the station he found he had mistakenly clicked the “print at home” box and couldn’t pick up the tickets. A call to thetrainline was useless, but as he had a copy of the ticket (as a PDF) on his iPhone, ticket staff advised him to talk to the ticket inspector when the Cross Country train arrived.

“The ticket inspector told me to simply get on the train and he would sort it on board. I said I didn’t want to travel if this would get me in trouble and would rather buy a new ticket but he insisted it would be fine,” he says.

The guard issued him a new ticket and said he had to write a report as a matter of course but it was unlikely anything would happen. But in February he received a letter from Transport Investigations (which acts on Cross Country’s behalf) accusing him of travelling without a valid ticket and threatening prosecution.

“I wrote back explaining what happened, and sent a copy of my ticket and booking reference emails etc. The company replied suggesting it was the passenger’s responsibility to pay the fare due and show a valid ticket when asked. A few weeks later it sent me a court summons to appear at Gloucester magistrates court.”

Ironically, had he bought the ticket from Cross Country Train’s website he could have elected to have had it sent directly to his phone. Money intervened on his behalf, and the case was dropped his week, but he says the matter was hugely stressful and time consuming. “I could understand it if I hadn’t bought a ticket, but I had – and could show I had,” he said.

Lucy Horitz, who works for the Cricket Foundation in London, wrote about two contrasting experiences. She and a colleague recently travelled on East Coast Trains from Newark to London. They bought advance singles for the lunchtime train for £29.50 and £19.45 with a young person’s railcard.

“At Newark station, we found ourselves 20 minutes early and discovered that there was another East Coast train departing at 11.54am. The guard on the station said that it would be fine for us to get on this train,” she says.

On board, however, another guard took a different view and insisted the pair buy two anytime single tickets at £74.50 each. She refused to let them pay the difference of an off-peak day single (£46.40) and wouldn’t take into account the railcard, or that they had been advised it would be OK at the station.

“We are not cheats – we are regular ticket-buyers who had been ill-advised. The train we got on was 80% empty, so we weren’t taking a seat from another paying customer. Throughout, the behaviour of the guard was appalling. In the course of discussions with us she became rude and raised her voice unnecessarily, leaning over my colleague threateningly. I think she was just using it as an excuse to get a commission on the new fare,” she says.

Horitz, however, recorded a much happier experience using Chiltern Railways. She missed a pre-booked train to Birmingham by two minutes. She was delighted when a staff member stamped her tickets and allowed her to catch the following train – proof she says it can be done.

Then there was KC of London. She arrived at King’s Cross to take an East Coast train to Dundee. The ticket printing machine wasn’t working. Platform staff advised her to board the train, but the guard gave her an unpaid fares notice of £162.50. When she appealed, East Coast apologised but incredibly refused a refund, until Money intervened.

Following that case we were contacted by other readers questioning the legality of the train company’s stance. They point to banks, which for years argued that overdraft and late payment penalties were sacrosanct, but which were then legally challenged. Train penalties could and should face the same scrutiny, they argued.

Anthony Smith, Passenger Focus’s chief executive, says his report next Tuesday will back up these cases with others, and call for a change in the rules governing ticketing – some of which stem as far back as 1889.

“Too many passengers who bought tickets but made an innocent mistake are being treated as though they had no intention to buy a ticket. We believe this is wrong and we will be pressing the train companies to take a more common-sense approach. The way people buy and use tickets has changed radically and rules governing their use are badly in need of an overhaul.”

He said he opposed a legal challenge but didn’t rule out an appeal to the rail regulator adding: “This is a battle we will win.”

A spokeswoman for the Association of Train Operating Companies said: “Train companies do their best to take a firm but fair approach to fare dodging. However, we understand that people make innocent mistakes and we are reviewing our approach so that, wherever possible, passengers aren’t unfairly penalised.”

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

Campaign is on for savers to move to socially responsible cash Isas – and the rates are surprisingly competitive too

You are looking to open a savings account, but would like your cash to be used in a socially or environmentally responsible way rather than financing arms dealing or other dodgy activities. Or perhaps you are angry about the cuts and bankers’ bonuses and want to teach the big banks a lesson by moving your savings elsewhere.

If either of these scenarios strikes a chord, a best-buy guide launched this week should help make it easier to choose the right account. And you might be surprised at the number of credit unions that are now offering competitive interest rates of up to 4%.

The Move Your Money campaign, which began as an anti-Wall Street movement in the US and arrived in the UK this year, has put together what it says is the first comprehensive list of socially responsible cash Isas offered by ethical banks, credit unions and building societies. It says the aim is to “help people choose an Isa that not only offers a good financial return but also puts their money to use in a responsible way”.

The online guide enables people to rank the accounts by interest rate, provider type and minimum deposit. It also tells you whether the account is instant access or one where you have to give notice to withdraw your cash, and if it allows you to transfer money in from existing Isas. In addition, Move Your Money has given each provider an “ethiscore” out of 20.

These are some of the better-paying accounts featured:

• 4% Top of the table in terms of headline rate this week are North London Credit Union and the Leeds and Skipton building societies, all of which have Isas paying up to 4%.

Traditionally, credit unions have been excluded from the best-buy tables, but new rules mean they are now able to pay interest on savings.

Many people won’t be aware of the North London Credit Union, based in Enfield, Middlesex, a community-based financial co-operative open to people who live or work in parts of north London (the boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, Haringey and Waltham Forest, and southern Hertfordshire). It has a 12-month fixed-rate cash Isa paying 4% on a minimum deposit of £2,000, or 3% below that, and a 90-day notice account which pays 2.5%.

Meanwhile, the Leeds and Skipton accounts are both five-year fixed-rate Isas paying 4% on a minimum of £1 and £500 respectively.

• 3%-plus Several other credit unions feature in the Move Your Money table, including the No1 CopperPot Credit Union, based in Stockport, which is open to serving and retired police officers, police community support officers, special constables and police staff and members of their family living at the same address in England or Wales. It has an instant access Isa paying a variable 3%.

Erewash Credit Union, open to those living or working in Derbyshire, also has an Isa paying 3%, as does London Mutual Credit Union, which caters for those living or working in the London boroughs of Southwark or Lambeth, and Voyager Alliance Credit Union, which offers financial services to people working in the passenger transport industry in England and Wales.

A number of building societies have Isas paying between 3% and 4%, including the Furness (3.75%), Cheshire (3.5%), Coventry (3.25%) and Principality (3.1%).

• 2% to 3% In addition to several building societies (including Nationwide and the Ecology) and ethical banks (Triodos and Britannia, part of the Co-operative Bank) offering products paying at least 2%, the Move Your Money table features a number of credit unions. These include Clockwise, for savers who live and work in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, which offers an instant access Isa paying 2.5%. The minimum deposit required is £1.

Police Credit Union, based in Birmingham, is also featured. Its 60-day notice Isa pays a minimum of 2.5% (in 2011-12 it exceeded this, paying 2.7%). The minimum deposit is £100.

Credit unions will appeal to many because savings are lent to local people and businesses to benefit the community. But at some, such as Clockwise and No1 CopperPot, transfers in of money held in existing Isas are not permitted.

But a government-commissioned report published this week warned that the credit union movement is “not financially sustainable” on current interest rates.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

Customers are increasingly being refused a refund after their bank card was stolen or accounts hacked

If a current account is hacked and fraudsters start making purchases and cash withdrawals using the card and pin – intercepted by the crooks – most customers would expect the bank to repay the losses without question.

If a wallet is stolen from a locked car, with the pin heavily disguised, most people would still expect the bank to refund any money withdrawn.

But, despite clear rules that state banks can only refuse to refund a customer if he or she has acted “fraudulently” or had been “grossly negligent”, there is growing evidence that the banks are taking a tougher line and refusing a refund – in some cases for the sole reason the thief used the card with a merchant the account holder had also done business with.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the account holder was miles away at the time, and it could not have been them, some banks have been insisting their customer is liable.

If you are one of millions of people who has written down your pin – even as part of heavily disguised code that only you can decipher – the implications are worrying.

This week Guardian Money was contacted by a Sheffield couple who lost £1,260 after their wallet, plus a mobile phone and a satnav, were stolen from the glove compartment of their locked car. Within a few hours the thief had taken cash out of two HSBC accounts – one personal and one business.

The couple had done what many others do – written their pin in a heavily disguised form on a business card. They say the information would only have meant anything to them, and that they are not even sure the business card was in the wallet.

But HSBC has refused to refund the money, arguing that the couple’s real bank cards (not a clone) and the correct pins were used and that, therefore, they have breached the bank’s terms and conditions and were grossly negligent. Their case is complicated by the fact that a year earlier they had asked the bank to raise their £300 daily ATM cash limit to allow them to take out a higher amount – but just for 45 minutes. The bank has admitted that it failed to return the limit after this time, which enabled the thieves to take more than they would have done normally.

The pair, who have banked with HSBC for five years, say local police have not been interested in their case, indicating this is partly because they expect the bank to reimburse them.

Money has also become aware of other cases in which a bank is persuaded by fraudsters to send out a replacement card and pin reminder, which are then intercepted and used by the thieves. Again, the banks refuse to pick up the losses.

Late last year we were contacted by a Mr Singh, who has been in dispute with Nationwide since 2010. Back then he was working on assignment in Bangalore. He was sent a replacement debit card and a pin reminder to his UK home which is occupied by other members of his immediate family.

However, he says, neither arrived. Instead, someone else started using the card in Mumbai, running up a bill of £3,000. He immediately reported the loss and cancelled the card.

Nationwide initially indicated that he would receive a full refund. But a week later it turned down his claim and accused him of being involved in the fraud. It suggested he knew the person who had used the card, a claim he emphatically denied.

After a year and a half investigation, the Financial Ombudsman sided with Nationwide, at which point he approached us looking for some advice. We put him in touch with a specialist card fraud investigator, Richard Emery, who runs 4Keys International. Within four weeks, he had persuaded Nationwide that Mr Singh had a legitimate claim. The building society did not return his money but, instead, paid him his losses as a “gesture of goodwill”.

Had Emery not intervened, he would have faced a lengthy legal court case, and the possibility that he could be accused of fraud in court.

But the reality is that banks cannot refuse a refund because, on the balance of probabilities, it feels there may have been fraud. It has to prove negligence or fraud, yet in many cases they are now turning down refunds where they have suspicion only.

It is not just Money that has noticed this trend. Last week, BBC’s Watchdog programme featured several similar cases. One Barclays customer found his bank cards had been used by thieves to buy two car tax discs from the DVLA website for vehicles he didn’t own. Barclays insisted he was liable because his hijacked card details had been used with a merchant that he had also used. When he pointed out that anyone with a car had to buy a tax disc it cut no ice, although Barclays later refunded him in full.

Another NatWest customer lost £18,000 when a fraudster rang the bank and persuaded it to change his address from a house in Slough to another in Nottingham, and asked for a new card and pin to be sent.

In his case, NatWest agreed to refund the £5,000 that had been moved out of his account electronically, but refused to hand back £13,000 in purchases and cash withdrawals. Even though he could show that he was out of the country at the time they were made NatWest argued that, because the purchases had been made by his exact card and pin, he was liable. Following the BBC’s intervention it has now repaid his money in full.

Richard Emery, who appeared on Watchdog, says that where a customer disputes a transaction there is an onus on the banks to prove that the payment was authorised by them.

The Financial Services Authority’s Banking Conduct of business states that a bank may only hold a customer liable … where the customer has acted fraudulently, or has “intentionally, or with gross negligence, failed to comply with his or her obligations … to take all reasonable steps to keep its personalised security features safe.”

Emery argues that it is quite possible for a customer to keep the card and pin safe, but for a fraudster to obtain them – or just the card details – through other means, which they then use to perpetrate the fraud. In such cases, the bank must repay the customer in full, he says. The Financial Ombudsman Service, where lots of these cases end up, relies on the payment services directive, which came into force in November 2009.

It says that if someone is a victim of fraud, the bank must refund them immediately – unless it has good grounds to suspect that the cardholder has been negligent or acted fraudulently.

A spokesman told Money this week that use of the correct card and pin is not “evidence of negligence in itself. We have always made it clear to financial businesses that just because a pin has been used correctly in conjunction with a card, does not, in itself, mean that the cardholder should be found responsible for the debt.

“We expect to see all the evidence from the financial business demonstrating how it has investigated the disputed transactions and reached its conclusions. We then look at all the evidence from both sides – including the consumer’s recollections – when resolving the dispute.”

Back in Sheffield, there is some partial good news for the couple who had their wallet stolen. HSBC says it recognises it failed to lower the ATM cash limit, so has agreed to refund half of the £1,200 the couple lost.

An HSBC spokesman says the couple admitted to writing their pins on the back of a card held in purse which, even if in a disguised form, is against the account’s terms and conditions and is “considered negligent”.

He says the bank had declined the rest of their claim because it was told there was no damage to the car when it was broken into. Having looked at the ATM withdrawal pattern of both cards, the bank concluded that it was highly unlikely that a thief could have been shoulder-surfed their pin.

It says there were no incorrect pin inputs, no balance inquiry, and no further attempted withdrawals after the cards were reported stolen.

The worst pin numbers to use

A study by cryptographers at Cambridge University has found that crooks have a one-in-11 chance of guessing your pin number – because so many people just use their birth date.

Researchers examined the real four-digit numbers used by millions of people to lock their phones or access specialist websites.

Patterns immediately emerged. Oddly, the digits 69 occur much more than they should at the end of a four-digit sequence, which perhaps says a lot about what’s on many people’s minds.

“About a quarter of people stick with their bank-assigned random pin, and over a third choose one using an old phone number, student ID or other sequence of numbers which is, at least to a guessing attack, statistically random,” says Joseph Bonneau, a researcher in the university’s computer security department.

But the rest are easier to guess. One in 20 people use a simple numeric pattern such as 4545. One in 10 use a pattern on the entry keypad – which suggests you’d be pretty dumb to pick 1379 or even 2580/0852 (down/up the centre of the keypad). “Unfortunately, the final group of 23% of users chose a pin representing a date, and nearly a third of these used their own birthday. This is a game-changer because over 99% of customers reported that their birth date is listed somewhere in the wallet or purse where they keep their cards. If an attacker knows the cardholder’s date of birth and guesses optimally, the chances of successfully guessing jump to around 9%,” says Bonneau.

He reckons banks should ban a hitlist of 100 bad pin numbers (starting with 1234) which, if eradicated, would prevent nearly all attempts at guessing.

A separate study last year by an Apple iOS developer found that the most common four-digit unlock passwords on iPhones are 1234; 0000; 2580; 1111; 5555; 5683; 0852; 2222; 1212 and 1998. 5863 is the numerical representation for the word “love”.

It seems we are also a bit rubbish at picking passwords. A study last year found that the most common password is … password, with “abc123″ not far behind.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

As the pound hits a high against the euro and currencies such as the florint and Turkish lira, is it time to buy your holiday money?

Good news if you are going on a eurozone holiday: the pound is the strongest it has been against the euro since August 2010, which means you should get more spending money for your sterling.

Each £1 is worth around 1.22 euros on the interbank rate, the rate at which banks sell currency to each other, used generally as an exchange benchmark. Rates for consumers are always a bit lower: on 23 April, for example, £1 would have typically bought you between 1.15 and 1.20 euros depending on which online supplier you chose, according to comparison website Compareholidaymoney.com.

So, if you can afford to, should you be stocking up on your holiday euros now for summer?

Some foreign exchange specialists are saying that the strong pound makes it a good time to buy euros, but others forecast that the pound will rise even more.

Alex Lawson, senior broker at foreign exchange company Moneycorp.com says: “There’s a good chance that the pound could rise further against the euro over the next month or two … but this is less down to any inherent strength in sterling, and more due to the continued weakness of the euro. A smart strategy would be to buy some of your holiday euros now, and the rest closer to your departure. That way you’ll get some at a good rate – and may get the rest at a brilliant rate.”

Richard Driver, currency analyst at foreign exchange company Caxtonfx.com, says: “We are expecting further gains in the direction of €1.30 this year.” But he warns: “As ever, consumers should avoid buying their euros at the airport or abroad. Planning ahead can really save you money.”

It is not just against the euro that the pound has risen. Both Hungary and Turkey should be cheaper this year. Paul Crombie, of foreign exchange company Changegroup.co.uk, says sterling is 18% stronger than last year against the Hungarian florint and 14% stronger against the Turkish lira.

The annual Post Office Holiday Costs Barometer of 15 destinations, also suggests good value in Bulgaria and Croatia. Its survey, which compares prices for a shopping basket of 10 items in a resort – including a three-course evening meal with a bottle of house wine for two – found that it has changed markedly over the past year. This, combined with the currency exchange movements, mean that the cheapest resort is not necessarily the one with the weakest currency against the pound.

Rising prices in Spain, for example, where the barometer shopping basket now costs £56.84, means it has lost its best value spot to Bulgaria, where the same goods cost just £42.79.

“Bulgaria is well ahead of its rivals when it comes to value and 4% cheaper than a year ago,” the survey says.

Spain, where escalating meal costs in the Costa del Sol have led to a 35% rise in its barometer total since 2011, has dropped to fourth place. It has been overtaken by the survey runner up, Turkey (£54.22), where resort charges in Marmaris have dropped 22% over the past year and are down by over a third compared with 2010.

The report says: “Prices are now on par with 2008 when Turkey was a magnet for UK tourists in search of a bargain deal – but 28.5% lower than in 2009 when costs first began to soar. The 2012 turnaround comes as restaurants and bars appear to have cut prices to bring back business, resulting in a drop of 12% in local costs.” The 14% rise in the pound against the Turkish lira also means that someone exchanging £500 for lira will have £60 more to spend than last year.

In third place, the Algarve (£54.46) is also ahead of the Costa del Sol for the first time in two years, making Portugal the cheapest eurozone destination surveyed.

Greece and its islands are more costly, despite the financial crisis that has enveloped the country. Prices are up 11% in Corfu and are 21% pricier than neighbour Turkey. But costs have dropped 19% in Cyprus (£57.57), 11% in France’s Vendée region (£66.43) and 6% in Malta (£64.81).

Outside the eurozone, Croatia’s prices are on par with 2011 (£73.65); prices in Dubai (£59.75) are 15% per cent cheaper than its mid-haul rival, Egypt (£70.29). However, the pound has weakened against the US dollar, so that sterling will buy 2.7% fewer US dollars than last April.

And where is the highest priced destination in the Post Office survey? It’s Brighton, UK, where the shopping basket of goods costs £79.25 – 3% more than a year ago.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

As high street betting shops and internet roulette claim ever more victims, Simon Murphy meets the gamers who have beaten the odds in a struggle with addiction

Eugene Farrar combed his hair, put on his best suit and polished his shoes. He wanted to make sure he looked the part for the moment he chose to turn his life around. On a spring afternoon last year, the 42-year-old calmly walked into a betting shop in Knaresborough, North Yorkshire, and told a member of staff: “I want to self-exclude – I’ve had enough.” Self-exclusion is a formal process whereby a person can ask a bookmaker to close their account and stop taking their money.

Just hours earlier, he had told his wife Tracy the secret he had been hiding from her for 12 years: he was a gambling addict.

Now, more than a year later, Farrar is perched on his chair, eyes welling up as he recalls the day he says he “got my life back”.

“Tracy said to me, ‘You don’t have to do it alone.’ When someone turns around and says that, it’s a really empowering thing to hear. When someone says they’ll walk with you, you immediately feel stronger,” the professional jazz musician says.

Farrar, whose grandfather owned a betting shop in the 1970s, played a gig in a local restaurant that night and said he “felt relief in every part of my body”. He has not gambled since.

Farrar, who estimates he lost more than £100,000 over two decades gambling, is not alone in his struggle. There are an estimated 450,000 “problem gamblers” in the UK, according to the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey.

And the numbers are rising – up from 0.6% of the population in 2007 to 0.9% in 2010, according to one measure. A further 3.5 million people were categorised as “at-risk” gamblers.

And GamCare, an industry funded body that provides support to problem gamblers, told a parliamentary select committee last year that 2% of 12 to 15-year-olds are addicted to gambling.

Betting shops are proliferating in the country’s poorest areas. In Hackney, east London, there are eight on one street alone, and 43 across the borough. In Haringey, where the riots flared up last summer, there are more betting shops than bookshops, according to Tottenham MP David Lammy.

Grasp, an independent reform group set up by former gambling addicts, and London Labour councillor Rowenna Davis recently launched a campaign called High Streets First, which is calling on the government to change the law to allow councils to prevent betting shops from clustering in poor inner-city areas.

Betting shops are classed as financial and professional services alongside estate agents and banks, meaning they can open up in any building that previously housed such organisations without planning permission. A review by retail guru Mary Portas recommended in December that councils be given the power to stop bookmakers opening, claiming “the influx of betting shops, often into more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”. Last month the government rejected Portas’s proposal, saying councils already had adequate powers.

Lammy, who tabled an amendment to the localism bill last year asking for a change to the class of betting shops, says the government was “squandering the opportunity to change the law to give local people the power to say ‘no’ to more of these shops”.

The rise in the number of betting shops is being driven by a new breed of gambling machines: fixed odds betting terminals. People can bet £100 a spin every 20 seconds on these virtual roulette machines, and Farrar says he has easily lost £1,000 in a single sitting, if not more.

Dubbed the crack cocaine of the betting industry, the terminals account for almost half of betting shops’ profits, and there are thought to be at least 32,000 in the UK, or one machine per 1,500 adults.

Legislation restricts the number in each betting shop to four, but councils are powerless to stop more shops opening. In last month’s budget George Osborne announced a new tax on the profits from fixed odds betting terminals, which could raise £50m a year. Yet critics fear this move may pave the way for an increase in the number of terminals allowed in each betting shop to six or even eight.

“The new gaming machine tax on fixed odds betting terminals proves that the government is addicted to the problem gamblers’ losses,” a Grasp spokesman says.

“These machines offer high stakes and high-speed play never seen before on our high streets. You can lose £18,000 an hour without being asked a question. They’re the perfect vehicle to fuel problem gambling.”

The internet has also provided problem gamblers with a new platform to pursue their addiction in secret. According to the Gambling Commission, 9.8% of people gamble online, up from 5.2% in 2006.

Problem gambling is not confined to the residents of deprived inner cities. Phil Mawer, privately educated in Taunton and captain of his university rugby team, had a successful career in support services for the oil industry, which saw him working through a civil war in Yemen and, more recently, in Afghanistan.

Happily married and living in Cyprus, working abroad for months at a time, the ease of internet gambling – specifically, blackjack – proved his undoing. He estimates he lost £500,000 over 20 years.

“Sure, I’ve dabbled with fixed odds betting terminals, but I was that far gone with the internet that I didn’t need to look for even quicker ways of blowing my money,” says Mawer.

“I do take responsibility for gambling but if I had a choice, why – given my circumstances – would I have taken such a destructive path in my life?

“I’m an intelligent guy, university educated, well-paid, I’m running an operation with 2,000 employees, 6,000 clients – I’m very renowned in my small industry.”

Mawer, 49, whose wife died last year, has written a self-help book for problem gamblers, Overcoming Gambling, detailing the methods that helped him stop. His last bet, in a casino at Frankfurt airport on 11 August 2006, is a moment he describes as his “rock bottom”.

He recounts the day he told his wife about his addiction. After returning from a trip working abroad, she confronted him with bank statements as they sat down for a drink on the veranda. “She was very, very shocked – there wasn’t anger immediately,” he says. “She was looking at three months of statements. She then went to the bank with her daughter and asked for five years’ worth of bank statements for all the accounts, credit card, the lot.”

Hours later, Mawer was forced to lock himself in the bathroom after his wife came at him with a kitchen knife during the night.

Years before, Mawer’s wife had suspected he was having affair but, in reality, it was his secret gambling that was forcing him to sneak around in the manner of an cheating husband.

“Everything you’d be trying to do if you were disguising a relationship is what you do as a gambler,” says Mawer, who admits he spent up to nine hours a day gambling online.

“You’ve got highs and lows and you try to disguise that – you become inattentive, over-attentive when you’re trying to cover up. You become emotionally barren as you have to cover the wins and the losses.”

For many former gambling addicts, the problem can be traced back to an early age.

Bobby Gee, 34, remembers being taken horse racing when he was eight. Throughout his teens he dabbled with bets on the greyhounds and, when he went out with friends to the pub, he would always be the one playing the fruit machine.

“I was in denial for many years that I had a problem,” says the father of two. “It never really bothered me – I’d always find a way to pay the rent. There were always people to borrow money off. I only really started to think it was a problem when I had a mortgage.”

Like so many others, fixed odds betting terminals offered Gee, a pub manager, an outlet for his addiction. He would find any opportunity to slip off to the betting shop – before or after work, during lunch, on the way to the shops.

“I’d have, say, £1,000 a month to pay the mortgage and arrears, and I’d go to the bookies thinking, it doesn’t matter, I’ll only use a couple of hundred quid. Then I’d lose the whole month’s payment,” says Gee, who lives in Brighton.

“As far as my missus was concerned, the mortgage was paid, but it wasn’t. To this day she doesn’t actually know how bad it was.”

Gee, who says he is “probably 10 or 20 grand in debt” because of gambling, used to take money out of the safe at a restaurant where he worked to fund his habit. He says he always replaced it – borrowing from friends, family, credit cards and high-interest payday loan companies.

“I got so good at lying. The things I was saying I actually started to believe myself,” he says. “It was always things like the car had broken down, I couldn’t get to work. Especially when you phone up people like credit card companies or the mortgage people, it’s always the lie of home improvements going over budget.”

For Gee, Mawer and Farrar – who are hoping that their stories will encourage others to deal with their gambling problems – there is no reason to lie any more.

‘Gambling is an illness, not merely a compulsion’

Two-thirds of patients treated at the UK’s first specialist problem gambling clinic have indicated that controversial fixed odds betting terminals encouraged their addiction.

Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones, who set up the NHS National Problem Gambling Clinic in London in 2008, also told Guardian Money society needs to recognise gambling is a fully fledged addiction rather than a mere compulsion. She hopes changing people’s perception of the illness will stimulate extra funding.

“It’s difficult for people to understand the severity of the illness unless they come into contact with patients. We have 2,000 files of people who have been referred to us. For example, they have lost their home, or their parents’ home, through gambling,” Bowden-Jones she says. “Many of them have broken marriages and have been separated from their children, lost their jobs or ended up in prison because of the gambling.”

The clinic, which has 10 staff including volunteers, survives on a budget of £300,000 a year, but Bowden-Jones hopes to increase funding by launching a charity called Gambling Concern.

“My dream is to have a day hospital and a drop-in centre, capturing people when they’re hot off the bookmakers. I can’t do that without the extra funding,” she says. “The fact that gambling is a hidden addiction works to the detriment of the pathological gambler because sometimes problems have gone so far with the gambler being able to hide the addiction, that by the time people pick up the problems it is an extremely serious addiction with people feeling suicidal. They don’t want to live any more because it’s a negative reality where they have no job, and no contact with friends because they’ve tried to borrow money and people have disowned them. They have no spouse, they’ve lost touch with their parents, they have no home.”

She says prisoners have written to her begging for treatment on the day of their release, indicating they will reoffend otherwise.

“Illegal activities among our patients are quite high. These are people who have an addiction and then steal money because they want to fund more gambling. The statistics are quite high – 40%, 50% of gamblers have committed illegal acts,” she says. “I really believe one of the things we should be doing, which we’ve started at the clinic, is to educate the criminal justice system to the fact that this is an illness and it needs to be taken into account when people end up in court.”

While gambling addiction is largely viewed as a male problem, roughly 10% of the clinic’s patients are female.

Professor Jim Orford, a leading expert on problem gambling at the University of Birmingham, thinks the ease of internet gambling poses a particular threat to women. “It’s something you don’t have to go out of the house to do, so women who stay at home are certainly at risk.”

Orford is also highly critical of fixed odds betting terminals, and backs the High Streets First campaign. “The kind of games you play on them are not your old fruit machine games – these are casino-type games of a kind that used to be confined to casinos. Now, here they are on the high street. By their very nature, I’m not surprised they combine all the features you would expect that make gambling particularly dangerous.”

Orford, who is launching a campaign group, Gambling Watch UK, thinks Tony Blair’s government lifted the lid on gambling. “As a country we were really quite restrained about gambling. It wasn’t advertised, it wasn’t encouraged – it was a bit of a dirty word among most people. Then the national lottery came and made a difference. It got gambling advertised in a big way, and all the other gambling firms got together and asked for a level playing field so they could be advertised themselves. I think there has been an enormous rise in gambling and an enormous rise in the accessibility. Attitudes are changing slowly and we really should be worried about it.”

• Has your local high street been taken over by betting shops? Please let us know in the comments below.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

The online holiday firm introduced a refunds process to iron out problems – so why do we still receive so many complaints?

Expedia is one of Britain’s most popular internet travel agents, and, for its millions of users, it works – for the most part – superbly. But when something goes wrong, Money readers report that dealing with it can turn into a nightmare.

Just over a year ago we reported that it had become one of the most complained about firms in our mailbag. At that time, reader problems were largely focused around long waits to get refunds in the event of a problem with flights. Expedia had apologised for any delays and said it was introducing a new refunds process that would iron out these sorts of problems. So has it worked?

Unfortunately, we are not convinced. Although the volume is not as high as it was last year, the continuous flow of complaints about the holiday booking site suggests there are still issues with refunds and, more recently, online booking.

Two readers wrote in recently with problems that mirrored others in our mailbag. ML from Co Galway wrote to say: “I am just another customer who is having the runaround with regards to refunds from Expedia. I booked a flight for me and my family from Dublin to South Africa on 28 January 2011 costing €2,417.28. My mum passed away a week before.

“We were told by Expedia that if we sent in a copy of the death certificate, it would refund us, but that it would take two to 12 weeks. It’s now gone to 32 weeks and still no refund.”

Reader JR had also been struggling to get a refund after he made two typing errors with passenger names for a recent trip to New York. “Expedia suggested I cancel and rebook after I had paid off the balance of the holiday. I was told I would get a refund. I did just that, only later to find they will not refund my flights so I am £2,400 out of pocket. I have subsequently contacted the airline who told me such typos would not cause a problem. I have had no response from Expedia, my emails fall on deaf ears and I really can’t afford to lose this sum of money.”

In the case of JR, Expedia blamed the lack of refund on “an agent error” and has now refunded him all his money, as well as giving him a £100 Expedia voucher. It has also refunded ML her money, although it says that the delay was due to the airline ML was booked to fly with. This was also the reason it gave for the 12-month delay another reader, SC in Italy, recounted in a letter we published at the end of last year.

The company says that these sorts of lengthy delays should now be minimal as it introduced the promised “refund optimisation process” last summer, which, in a nutshell, is meant to speed up refunds as a result of it putting more pressure on the airlines involved.

It says fewer than 5% of refund requests take as long as 90 days to process, and that any that take longer than this “are identified for immediate refund with Expedia covering the cost of these, instead of waiting for the third-party airline to resolve the issue”.

To be fair to Expedia, it has a huge share of the online travel agency market (21%, according to travel market research company PhoCusWright, compared with 9% for Lastminute.com), so it is bound to attract a higher volume of complaints.

It also says our mailbag may be a reflection of the number of incidents it has had to deal with over the last couple of months that have contributed to an increase in refund requests, notably the collapse of several airlines.

“We do sympathise with the frustration in the time it can take for us to process customer refunds,” Expedia told us, “but we would also like to note that, as of last week, 98% of outstanding refunds had all been resolved within the 90-day time frame.”

But refund delays do not seem to be the only issue for the booking site. The Observer’s financial agony aunt, Margaret Dibben, reports that, like Guardian Money, she still gets a disproportionate number of Expedia complaints. “People are told that the booking has not been made, so they try again, or go elsewhere, and then find the money has been taken from their bank account. Then they cannot get the money back because of delays and obfuscation at Expedia. They exchange dozens of emails but get nowhere.”

We featured one such email recently from AT in Edinburgh, who found she had been double charged for a flight to Canada after the screen froze during her initial booking attempt, sending her back to the start. “The next day I went back to Expedia and it transpires that I had paid £365 for an Air Canada return flight from Vancouver to San Diego and then £395 to be on the exact same flight as myself,” she says. In this case Expedia refunded the money to AT after our intervention and gave her a £25 Expedia voucher. It says that the website freezing, causing people to double book, was “a very rare temporary issue which was identified and fixed in February but we appreciate that, at the time, caused understandable confusion for customers”.

It adds that where an error does occur during online booking, a message should appear on screen asking the customer to call. This doesn’t appear to have been the case for the readers who have contacted us, but we would be interested to hear whether anyone has experienced the problem since February.

One thing we have observed that may prove valuable to some readers struggling to get redress from the booking site is how it appears to have adopted social media to resolve complaints. A number of readers have reported how they have posted a brief message about their issues on Twitter – and have rather swiftly seen their problem resolved. You can find Expedia on Twitter at @ExpediaUK.

Contact us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

Has your nearest pub become a Tesco Express? Protesters find themselves virtually powerless to stop supermarkets taking over

When local residents and traders found that the Bird in Hand pub in Brickhill, Bedford, would be converted into a Tesco Express, they were determined to resist. Within three weeks, an action group collected 1,500 signatures protesting against the store. Hundreds turned out for a public meeting.

Councillors were lobbied, a protest website set up, boycotts organised. The protestors found a restrictive covenant that said the site could not sell anything more than tobacco, alcohol and mineral water. A community poll in October, which drew a higher turnout than the town’s mayoral referendum, gave a thumping ‘no’. In total, 1,080 people voted against Tesco, and only 69 in favour.

But the protests fell on deaf ears, and in February the retail giant took over the Bird in Hand, its eighth store in Bedford. Despite the Brickhill protests, Tesco has now found another pub across town, the Crown, which it plans to convert into what will be its ninth Bedford store.

Tesco says the new stores bring more choice to the area, generate investment and create new jobs. But protestors disagree. “This town is being crushed by the monopoly that Tesco is developing,” said one on the Save Brickhill Shops website.

Across Britain, hundreds of pubs are being converted into Tesco Express or Sainsbury’s Local stores as supermarkets pursue a “street corner” growth strategy in the face of restrictions on out-of-town developments. Tesco has opened 1,500 Express stores already and plans hundreds more. Sainsbury’s has 400 Locals, Morrisons is trialling its M-Local stores and Waitrose is rolling out 300 Little stores. The Co-op is also planning a big expansion of its convenience store format.

The march of the retail giants has met with fierce, but almost entirely fruitless, resistance across the country. The roll-call of failed campaigns is lengthy; the Red Lion in Milford, the Black Bull in Kirklees, the Alexandra in Wigan, the Carpenter’s Arms in Cardiff, the Honeysuckle Arms in Gateshead, the Angel Inn in Caerleon near Newport, the Marsham Arms in Chelmsford … the list could run on and on.

But why are pubs targeted? Critics say a legal loophole allows them to be converted to mini-markets without planning permission, leaving councils powerless to halt the process. What’s more, as long as the floor space is no more than 280 sq metres (3,000 sq ft), the retailer can bypass the Sunday Trading Act and remain open all hours.

Councils that oppose redevelopment may find themselves in long legal battles. Tesco recently submitted its fourth application for the Fox and Hounds pub on Abingdon Road, Oxford, which has been turned down three times by the council.

Tesco stated that: “The legal position with regards to the proposals is that the building as it stands can be used for retail without the need for planning permission.”

The retail giants have rich pickings from the flood of pubs coming on to the market. Although the rate of pub closures has fallen from a peak of about 200 a month in the first half of 2009, around 15 still shut every week.

Ian Murray MP, Labour’s shadow consumer affairs minister, is backing a campaign in his constituency, Edinburgh South, against the opening of a Sainsbury’s Local. “We have seen all over Edinburgh how the arrival of the Metros, Expresses and Locals draws the lifeblood out of streets. Sometimes we see them going up either side of the same street. Other stores find it difficult to compete, even though it’s not the case that the multiples are any cheaper than local shops. Other shops close down, charity shops move in, and the street’s vitality fades away.

“The government has to respond to the [Mary] Portas review, and local planning needs to be given more teeth. It’s important that unique shopping streets remain vibrant.”

Around a 10th of Britain’s smaller convenience stores have closed in the last decade, according to the Association of Convenience Stores. A spokesman for the ACS said: “We’re seeing a really aggressive wave of expansion by Tesco, Sainsburys and Morrisons. We’re not saying they shouldn’t be given permission, but are they really appropriate in all locations? Local traders don’t feel that they get the chance to have a say.”

The ACS points out traders rooted in their community are more likely to use local suppliers and have a multiplier effect. For example, a local store is likely to employ a local accountant to do the books, whereas Sainsbury’s or Tesco will centralise such functions.

Tesco says it has no specific strategy of targeting pubs. “We just follow where our customers are,” says spokesman Michael Kissman. “Communities are interested when there is change on their high street, so we proactively write to residents before opening a store. Our Express stores bring thousands of people back to the high street and produce real jobs.

“We are the largest investor on the high street at the moment. For example, look at our Express store in Kensington, Liverpool, which is not far from Toxteth. We have been well received as we bring good-value fresh food into the area and a cash machine that doesn’t charge £1.50 a time.”

Sainsbury’s says many of the pubs it has taken over were eyesores. “For example, we have opened a Sainsbury’s Local in a derelict pub in Withington, Manchester. This Grade II-listed building had been empty for several years before being refurbished and restored by a developer and offered to us. It is now providing a convenient shopping location for customers in the area.”

But Bobby Chambers, who has run a newsagent in Brickhill, Bedford, says any jobs created by the Tesco Express opening a few doors from him in the old Bird in Hand will be wiped out by job losses elsewhere. “Other shops on the parade won’t survive. It’s complete overkill. Since the Tesco opened last month our takings have been down 15%-20%. But the likes of Tesco will always win because a small independent can’t compete against a multibillion-pound company. If they want, they could sit there for years making a loss while the rest of us go out of business.”

Tescopoly.org, an alliance of organisations concerned about supermarket power, claims supermarkets erode local choice, siphon money from local communities, destroy local jobs, exploit suppliers and damage the environment. Its website hosts hundreds of tales of battles against retail giants around the country.

Bedford’s nine Tescos, plus four One Stop stores in the area which are also owned by Tesco, means the town now vies with Inverness as Britain’s No 1 “Tesco Town”. Bedford mayor Dave Hodgson says: “We haven’t fallen over in front of Tesco, but under the current planning framework you can’t stop Tesco taking over a pub. We sought legal advice over the restrictive covenants [on the Bird in Hand] but we were advised they were probably not enforceable. I regret the fact we have lost fishmongers, butchers and greengrocers but our town centre market is thriving, with takings up over 17% on the year.

“I went to a school debating society near Brickhill where they voted against the opening of the Tesco. But every one of the children I spoke to after said that they and their parents went to Tesco, that the special offers were great and how good it was. And since it opened in Brickhill, the only complaints I’ve had are from people about the lack of parking, because so many people are going there.”

Case study: Bruntsfield, Edinburgh

Bruntsfield is one of Edinburgh’s more prosperous and affluent districts, with elegant tenements and streets of handsome Victorian villas.

Upmarket restaurants and independent boutiques line the thriving main shopping street, which heads out towards Morningside, home to some of the city’s most exclusive addresses. So when traders and residents found that Sainsbury’s Local was elbowing in, it provoked a fierce backlash.

In this instance it’s not a pub, but a much-loved local deli, Peckham’s, that Sainsbury’s is replacing with what critics say is just another me-too, bland addition to its chain of 400 “Local” mini-supermarkets.

Peckham’s fans talked of its high-quality foods, much of it locally-sourced, and a cheese and wine selection that went beyond the usual brands seen in the major chains – although they also complained about high prices. Many fear that the arrival of another chain store into what locals describe as Edinburgh’s answer to Notting Hill, will wreck the unique charm of the area and devastate local independent shops.

A “Say No To Sainsbury’s” campaign began on Facebook, although most accept that, in reality, Sainsbury’s arrival is a fait accompli.

Karen Mackay, who runs the Nippers children’s clothing company in Bruntsfield Place, says it’s not about traders ganging up against a new arrival to protect their profits.

“I’m not in competition with Sainsbury’s at all. What irks us most is how the multiple chains are infiltrating every corner of every high street in the country. We just think enough is enough.

“But despite the best actions of local traders and residents, they’re still likely to come in. They just seem to bulldoze their way in everywhere.

“It’s also about aesthetics. It’s a listed Victorian building. Do we really want Sainsbury’s signage and neon all over the building? What’s to like?

“Every other area invaded by the chains has empty shops because the independents don’t have the same buying power and can’t compete. So they close down and the charity shops come in. To be honest this is about the only area of Edinburgh that has managed to escape turning into a street of charity shops, but now I wonder.”

Ian Somerville, a local food blogger, says: “There’s Tescos and there are Sainsbury’s Locals everywhere at the moment, and I think Bruntsfield is well-known for its locally-owned traders, and I think loads of people are going to suffer. It just feels like if there is not one big corporation popping up somewhere, it’s another down the road with Starbucks and the big Costa.

“When we first came to Bruntsfield more than 10 years ago, there was a greengrocers, a small general store (Spar), a newsagent, a butcher, two delis and two fishmongers, as well as Oddbins and Wine Rack. What we really liked was that we could get everything we needed without having to go to a soulless supermarket.

“Then Tesco opened a store in the area. One by one, small individual shops have closed with the latest casualty being Peckham’s.

“Peckham’s opened my eyes to the range of different beer from Scotland and they supported Scottish suppliers – Ramsay’s bacon, Summer Isles Foods and Simple Simon’s pies. Now, apparently, Sainsbury is to take over the Peckham’s site – another nail in the coffin of small businesses.”

A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said: “We are confident that our Bruntsfield Place Local will be a positive investment in the high street when it opens in June adding to the existing vibrant mix of businesses, and we have engaged traders and the local MP on our plans.

“Sainsbury’s is actively investing in high streets in Scotland with Morningside Road in Edinburgh being a good example of where opening a Local in derelict units has been welcomed.”

Case study: Herne, Kent

It takes a lot to stir a quiet Kent village into demonstrating in the streets, but when Tesco applied to convert the village pub into an Express store, sited between a church dating back to 1350 and the local post office, local residents erupted in anger. Despite rain and cold, more than 700 marched through the village in early March, waving “Herne Against Tesco” placards.

Unlike almost every other campaign around the country, however, this time the protestors won. Tesco has decided to pull out of the village, and now local residents are drawing up plans for how best to use the Upper Red Lion.

Although Tesco promised to create 20 jobs and be a “good neighbour” Herne Against Tesco said it wanted to keep the village free from “corporate business”.

Alan Marsh, a Kent county councillor who helped spearhead the campaign, insists that few local people were opposed to Tesco in principle, but were just concerned that an Express store on the site would blight the character of the village.

“We struck up a relationship with Tesco right from the start, and let them know it really wouldn’t work to have a Tesco between the graveyard and the village shop and with nowhere to park,” he says.

“It would have been a horrible traffic situation. Everyone thought it was an injustice. After Tesco withdrew we helped them find other locations where an Express store might work.”

Herne Against Tesco drew support from across the political spectrum, with parish and county councillors joining solicitors and accountants on a 20-strong committee to fight the proposals.

“No one envisaged the incredible level of support that we got on that march,” Marsh says. “We closed the road, little children made their own banners, adults were waving placards, there were 20 stewards, indeed it took more than half an hour for the marchers to cross the road, and everyone from the village came out.

“The next day it was on social media, YouTube and Facebook and my goodness everything was flying around,” he adds. “Then on the Friday afternoon, Tesco called and said they wouldn’t be going ahead.”

A spokesman for Tesco said: “We hadn’t actually bought the site in Herne or even submitted an application, but we had written to people expressing our interest.

“From our consultation, we found that people were concerned that it would be difficult for Tesco to make truck deliveries to that particular site. We decided that it was not a great place for a shop. I’m proud of the fact that it shows we listen to our customers.”

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

There are good, tax-free deals, but the clock is ticking

The clock is ticking for savers who have yet to use this year’s Isa allowance. There are plenty of decent deals – you can earn up to 3.5% interest from an easy-access cash Isa, or up to 4.5% if you are prepared to tie your money up for a few years.

But with the 5 April end of tax year deadline fast approaching, you will need to get your skates on. Some providers, such as the AA‘s banking arm, have already put down the shutters, and are only accepting applications for the 2012-13 tax year, so check before you apply.

“Even if you’re a taxpayer who can’t afford to invest money for long, it still pays to use a cash Isa because you won’t be taxed on the interest,” says David Black, banking specialist at financial research company Defaqto. These people should choose an instant or easy-access Isa.

And remember, you don’t have to use your existing Isa provider for future years’ allowances.

Here we look at some of the best deals on offer:

Instant/easy access

3.5% At the time of writing, the highest rate on offer is 3.5%, offered by Cheshire building society (part of the Nationwide group) and the AA.

The Cheshire’s Direct Cash Isa’s rate includes an introductory fixed bonus of 2.5% until 30 September 2013. After that, the rate drops to 1%. And while the account allows unlimited penalty-free withdrawals and deposits, you have to manage it by post, which won’t suit everyone. The minimum amount to open an account is £1,000. The society needs to have received your cheque by Thursday 5 April in order to qualify for this year’s allowance. This account doesn’t allow people to transfer money in from existing Isas.

The last date to apply for an AA cash Isa for this tax year was 29 March – applications made from now will be for tax year 2012-13. Its Postal Access Isa has a headline rate of 3.5%, but this includes a fixed bonus of 3% for 12 months. After that, the rate plummets to 0.5%. As the name suggests, this is a postal account. You can put in between £2,500 and £5,640 (maximum for 2012-13). Again, transfers from other cash Isas are not allowed.

3.3% Santander‘s Direct Isa pays 3.3%, which includes a 2.8% bonus for 12 months. After that, the rate falls to 0.5%. Savers can transfer in cash Isas they already have, and you can withdraw your money at cash machines, over the phone or via internet banking at any time. A minimum opening deposit of £2,500 applies, though you can open the account with a zero balance if you are transferring in an existing Isa from somewhere else. However, the deadline to apply online for this tax year is Sunday, 1 April.

3.1% The Online Bonus Cash Isa from Skipton building society pays 3.1%. What’s good about this account is that it includes a 1.1% temporary bonus. This means that, as things currently stand, after 12 months – when the bonus has dropped off – the account will pay a not-bad 2%. Minimum opening balance is £1. You can make as many withdrawals as you like without notice or penalty. Transfers in from other Isas are not permitted.

Nationwide has an online Isa that also pays 3.1%, but to be eligible, you have to have one of its card-based accounts. That rate includes a 2.1% bonus until 30 September 2013. The account offers instant access with unlimited deposits and withdrawals. You have to open your account with £1,000-plus, and it allows you to transfer in funds from existing cash Isas.

Fixed-rate Isas

These typically pay the best rates, but you need to be fairly certain you won’t need the cash during the fixed term. Early withdrawals or transfers can be hit with an interest penalty or fee.

There are lots of one-year fixed-rate Isas paying more than 3%, including Saga (3.6% – applications made from now onwards will be for tax year 2012-13), Santander (3.5% – the deadline to apply online for 2011-12 is Sunday, 1 April), and Leeds building society, Metro Bank and M&S Money (all 3.25% – M&S Money says the deadline for online and phone applications is Tuesday 3 April and 8pm on Thursday 5 April respectively, while postal applications must arrive by 5 April).

Those happy to sign up for three years or more can get 4%-plus from, among others, NatWest, which has a three-year fixed-rate account paying 4.2% to people who transfer their cash Isa from another provider. This does not take effect until 9 May 2012. The Halifax has lots of fixed-rate Isas, and is paying 4.25% over three years, 4.35% over four years, and 4.5% over five years. The Halifax accounts all involve people putting in a minimum of £500.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

With the hosepipe ban about to hit the south of England, sales of water butts have soared

Warnings that hosepipe bans are imminent across southern and south-east England have triggered a run on sales of water butts.

B&Q says that its sales are 196% up on this time last year following the announcement in mid March that seven water companies in southern and eastern England – Southern Water, South East Water, Thames Water, Anglian Water, Sutton and East Surrey, Veolia Central and Veolia South East – will be implementing bans, most starting on 5 April.

The Environment Agency, the statutory body charged with managing water resources in England and Wales, says East Anglia and south-east England are in drought and warns that if dry weather continues this spring, it could spread north to east Yorkshire and west to the Hampshire-Wiltshire border. So hosepipe bans could become widespread.

A ban prevents householders, with few exceptions, from using a hosepipe connected to the mains water supply for any domestic chores. It means you can’t use it to water plants or clean cars, bikes, boats, garden furniture or any outside area such as patios or walls, nor to fill or top up swimming pools, paddling pools, or ornamental fountains and ponds unless they have fish or other aquatic animals living in them.

Tens of thousands of litres of rainwater falls on your roof every year, enough to fill hundreds of water butts with free water, according to campaigning, not-for-profit organisation Waterwise.org.uk. So the message is: Get a butt and become a fan of the can.

“Your hosepipe or sprinkler can use as much water in an hour as a family of four in a day. So swap your hose for a watering can, and fill it from your water butt to get the benefit of softer water,” says the Energy Saving Trust.

Apart from doing your bit to conserve water, using them to capture and harvest rainwater can help to reduce your bill if you are on a water meter. And while this may not affect you, or save you money right now, it may well do so in the future. By 2015 Southern Water proposes to meter the majority of properties in its area, and South East Water by 2020 – with other water companies looking to introduce meters for all domestic properties in the very long term. So for thousands of households, it will pay in the future to invest now in water-saving devices.

You can buy a water butt from most garden centres and DIY stores and install it, relatively easily, next to the down pipe of your house, or any garden building that has a system of gutters, such as a shed, greenhouse, conservatory or outdoor office. B&Q’s bestselling butt is the 100 litre Sankey Slim Space Saving Waterbutt in green at £24.98 in store or online.

Instructions on how to install a butt can be found on the Energy Saving Trust website. If you have the space you can consider increasing your water storage capacity by connecting several butts together with a linking kit so that when one butt is full, the water will automatically flow into the next.

If you are looking for a standard, low-cost butt it’s worth checking out what your water company has to offer. Most of the water companies have teamed up with commercial partners to sell reasonably priced water butt kits with free delivery.

Anglian Water is currently running a multibuy “buy one get one half price” offer on several of its range. This includes the 190-litre, green, Rainsaver kit marketed as “the biggest selling water butt in the UK” at £38.96, and the 100-litre Mini Rainsaver kit at £28.96, both including free delivery.

Meanwhile, Thames Water is selling the 200-litre Cloudburst Water Butt Kit, with a green, wood grain effect and fitted with a child-safe lid and tap as standard at £37.19, and the smaller 95-litre Cloudburst kit at £27.19. Prices include delivery and a £1 donation to the London Wildlife Trust.

If you want something more unusual, try a specialist website such as Waterbuttsdirect.co.uk, Simplywaterbutts.co.uk or Greenfingers.com where you can choose from standalone and wall-mounted decorative butts that look like (or are) wooden barrels, terracotta pots, stone walls, metal planters – even Roman columns – in a wide variety of sizes, materials and prices.

Standard water butts can be used but normally will only hold around 200 litres of rainwater, which can easily be used up in a day or two to water a large garden. So if you have a lot of land to water or an allotment, for example, you might be after something bigger.

Rather than paying several hundred pounds for a large new tank, one option is to go for a recycled container. Popular with farmers are giant 1,500-litre black plastic tubs, once used for transporting orange juice into the UK from abroad. Only three years ago you could get one for around £90 but they have fallen out of use by the import trade and prices have risen to about £280.

The cheaper, though arguably less attractive, alternative offered by Smiths is a recycled IBC (integrated bulk container), also used previously for food or drink transportation. These white plastic, rectangular containers are washed and re-conditioned and come in a galvanised steel cage on a pallet with a tap outlet; they can be linked to each other or used separately. IBCs with a 1,000-litre capacity cost £75 plus £49.50 delivery plus VAT, totalling just under £150.

If you can’t physically cope with filling up and carrying water from the butt, you can buy submersible pumps suitable for extracting rainwater from your butts to feed hoses, sprinklers and pressure sprays.

Well-reviewed models include the Hozelock 3 in 1 Water Butt Pump at £52.48 from B&Q, available online to reserve and collect instore; the Karcher SDP7000 Submersible Water Pump at £49.95 with Super Saver free delivery from Amazon; and the Silverline 633872 Water Butt Pump at £39.93 including p&p from Tools4trade.com.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk

Whether you are a low, middle or high earner the Budget won’t pass you by. We speak to families in each bracket to see how they might be affected

What’s in the Budget for you? With speculation rife about what chancellor George Osborne will announce, we speak to a middle, high and low earner to find out their expectations – and fears – for the next year

The middle earner

Like thousands of other middle income earners, Dominic Ceraldi hasn’t had a pay rise this year. As a result, he says, his family’s budget has become even more squeezed over the past 12 months as the cost of “almost everything” has gone up.

The HR manager, who works in central London for Pimlico Plumbers, earns almost exactly the median average salary for those who work in the capital – around £43,000, but is reluctant to replace the family car he sold over a year ago because he’s not sure he can afford to run one.

Ceraldi, who came south from his native Lancashire to work, says he feels as though he has been “completely stitched up” by the coalition government that has targeted so many cuts on families with children in his income bracket.

He is one of the 750,000 who were caught in one of George Osborne’s first acts – the move to lower the threshold at which point earners start paying higher rate (40%) tax. He, his wife, who now works as a part-time teaching assistant and their six-year-old son, have already lost tax credits worth £545 a year. They also face losing £1,055 from next year if the government goes ahead with its controversial plan to withdraw child benefit entirely for households that include one higher rate tax payer.

“Don’t get me wrong, we are not pleading poverty and there are many others that are far worse off than us. However, we don’t feel well-off and don’t understand why we are being taxed as such. It certainly hasn’t got any easier over the last year,” he says.

Next month the rent on their small home in Silvertown, east London, will rise by around £45 a month. The cost of his travelcard has also risen by £5 a week. Water bills are on the up, and his only cost saving has come in lower gas and electricity bills after ditching the pre-paid meter the family inherited from the previous tenant.

He says they’d like to buy a car to replace the VW he was forced to sell last year in a bid to lower the family’s outgoings but is worried the cost of fuel and insurance would put unnecessary pressure on other parts of their budget. Higher food bills have also taken their toll, he says.

“I will be very annoyed if the government goes ahead and takes away child benefit. They recently suggested that for most on higher incomes it would be like giving up the family curry on Friday night. I can assure them it doesn’t get used for that purpose where we are – it all just goes into the family pot. Those who voted Liberal at the last election must be furious to be getting this,” he says.

How middle income earners may fare in the Budget

• Tax Credits A whole raft of changes to tax credits are set to come into force on 6 April 2012, hitting families earning over £26,000.

The system is incredibly complicated but, broadly, from April you probably won’t get child tax credit if you work at least 30 hours a week, have one child and your annual income is more than £26,000. Those with two children earning over £32,200 are similarly affected. In both cases they lose £545 a year. You could still qualify from 6 April if your income is above these amounts if you pay for approved childcare, are disabled, or have more than two children.

The only bright spot is that those who do qualify for tax credits, may receive more. For example, a family with two adults (both working full time) and two children but no childcare costs, with an income of £25,000 a year, will see their tax credits rise by £270 to £2,978 a year after April.

A couple with two children, a household income of £40,000, but childcare costs of £300 a week will also see a £270 a year rise to £7,748 after April.

There are also new hours rules for couples with children who claim working tax credit.

At the moment, if you are responsible for at least one child, you have to be in employment for at least 16 hours a week to qualify. From 6 April, in most cases, your joint working hours will need to be at least 24 hours a week to qualify. Single parents need only work 16 hours.

• Child benefit changes The government is committed to removing child benefit from any household that includes a higher rate taxpayer – those earning at least £42,475 from April 2013.

Child benefit, frozen last year, is £20.30 a week for the first child, and then £13.40 for subsequent children. A family with two children currently receives £1,752.40 a year.

Critics say the plans unfairly penalise stay-at-home mothers, where the father earns around £45,000 a year. A couple next door, each earning £40,000 a year with children would keep their child benefit under the current plans.

Expect some changes on in the Budget, or a raising of the threshold at which it is removed. At the very least Osborne will say he’s looking at “the new tax on marriage”, as it has been dubbed, with an announcement possible in the autumn statement.

• Fuel duty Last November Osborne conceded that operating a car is a necessity rather than a luxury for many households as he halted a proposed 3p a litre fuel duty increase on petrol and diesel due to come into force in January this year. Fuel duty is set to rise 3p a litre in August. Cancelling that too would be popular, but is not expected as a lot can happen to oil prices between now and then.

The high earner

Tony Stein is founder and director of Canterbury Care, which operates 11 care homes across the UK. Last year his earnings “just about touched” the £150,000 level at which further income is taxed at 50%. He joined more than 500 bosses of small and medium-sized companies who signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph in February calling for the 50p rate to be scrapped as it was damaging the economy.

“The tax, which is in effect a 58% tax after national insurance is taken into account, puts wealth creators like us in a very awkward position,” the letter said, adding: “Repealing the 50p tax would demonstrate the chancellor’s wish to celebrate British entrepreneurialism, stimulate industry and contribute to the government’s growth agenda.”

Stein, 47, says he is “more than happy to dig deep” at a time of austerity to help out those less fortunate. Although he adds: “We employ 455 people, but we have £14m in borrowing, and a big mortgage on my home. At the end of the day I have my neck on the line. Yes, I earn £150,000 or so, but it’s me who has sleepless nights over the borrowings and operations of the business, and it’s me who works all weekend. It’s not as if I’m earning millions. Actually, what has me shouting at the telly is the executives of big banks who earn millions but aren’t putting their own money at risk. The 50p rate is hitting normal people like me.”

Higher taxes come at a time when the care home business is challenging, he says. “We are having to cope with higher fuel costs, regular increases in the minimum wage, everything is going up – but at the same time the fees we are able to charge are going down, and occupancy levels are down because local authorities don’t have the money to place people in care.”

But would a high earner such as Stein really be less inclined to be entrepreneurial, less likely to invest or less likely to employ people simply because income over £150,000 is taxed at 50%? “I take a broad view. I wouldn’t really care if the rate was 60p in the pound. What I’m concerned about is, the 50% rate is now one of the highest in the world and we are no longer the go-to place for entrepreneurs.”

He adds that, in his own situation, higher tax means he has less to invest in other businesses. “I’ve got a lot of friends who earn above £150,000. Most of them started businesses. This isn’t about being greedy. The more tax that is taken, the less disposable income there is for people like me to reinvest into businesses and create jobs.”

He’s not optimistic that the chancellor will remove the 50% rate, but says he would like to see him announce a fixed date for when it will be abolished, plus a 10% rate for those who earn over £5m.

“At the moment, people in that league go offshore and don’t pay anything in tax. If we taxed them at 10%, at least we get something. At the moment, we get 50% of nothing.”

How high earners may fare in the Budget

• 50% tax rate Currently, earnings above £150,000 are taxed at 50%, called the “additional rate”. The 40% rate applies to earnings above £35,000 which, once the personal allowance of £7,475 is added, means most people start paying on salaries above £42,475.

The government has already announced that the starting point for the 40% tax band will remain at £42,475 in 2012-13, which inevitably means that more people will start paying 40% tax than before. Few commentators now believe Osborne has the nerve to axe the 50% rate for the coming tax year, although the chancellor may announce a date when it will be removed.

• 60% anomaly High earners are more hopeful for a revision to the 60% anomaly in the tax system.

This arises on incomes between £100,000 and £115,000 as personal allowances are withdrawn, and means that earnings in that band are taxed more heavily than earnings above £115,000. Broadly, you lose £1 of personal allowance for every £2 of earnings over £100,000.

For example, on earnings of £104,000 to £105,000, the earner pays 40% in income tax (£400) but they also lose £500 of their personal allowance, which works out at an effective 60% tax deduction on earnings.

The chancellor may look at different ways of tapering the loss of personal allowance.

• Mansion tax This Lib Dem proposal to tax homes at 1% of their value above £2m could raise as much as £1.7bn, with around 40,000-50,000 homes falling into the net. A £2.5m home would pay £5,000 a year, while a £5m home would pay £30,000. It is billed as the Lib Dem quid pro quo for letting their coalition partners scrap the top 50% tax rate.

But if Osborne keeps the higher rate he’s extremely unlikely to introduce this as well.

• Tycoon tax This flat-rate levy would ensure the wealthiest can no longer dodge taxes through various wheezes dreamed up by accountants. Mooted by Nick Clegg, it has split the Lib Dems, but recent reports suggest the chancellor is considering some form of minimum levy to avoid exploitation of tax loopholes by the rich.

• Pension tax relief The idea is that it’s unfair that the better-off gain most of the benefit from tax relief on pensions. For every £1 a higher rate taxpayer puts into a pension, he or she receives 40p in tax relief, while a basic rate taxpayer earns relief at just 20p in the pound.

Limiting relief to 20p in the pound overall would save the government billions, but pension experts such as Baker Tilly say making changes to pension tax relief is a Gordian knot.

An easier option to raise revenue might be to reduce the current £50,000 cap on annual contribution levels into a pension.

The low earner

Alison Fulcher is crossing her fingers that the chancellor won’t announce fresh cuts to the tax credits that she, and many other low-income households, rely on.

Fulcher, a 41-year-old single parent, holds down two jobs – she works as an art tutor, teaching a group of adults with complex needs and learning difficulties, and is also a support worker for a charity in Brentwood, Essex, where she lives. “At the moment, I work about 20 hours a week and rising. I’d love it to be full-time, and hopefully it will be,” she says.

Thousands of families will be affected by changes to the tax credit system that take effect on 6 April. Couples with at least one child will, between them, need to work at least 24 hours a week to continue receiving working tax credit – up from 16 at the moment. However, because Fulcher is a single parent, she is not affected.

She will also escape another change taking effect on the same day – a slashing of the annual income limit for child tax credit eligibility – because she earns less than the new, lower income threshold of around £26,000 for people with one child.

Fulcher currently receives both of these tax credits and says: “I’m reliant on it.” Cutting, or freezing, tax credits would be “difficult” for people in her position, though she adds that she wouldn’t want those earning a bit more to be “taxed unfairly”.

She supports the proposal to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000 to ensure low-paid workers are exempt from paying tax (see right).

Fulcher, whose daughter is 15, has been divorced for more than 10 years and does not receive financial support from her ex-husband. She was a property owner until about four years ago, and now rents a terraced house, for which she pays around £750 a month.

Like millions of other people, she has felt the impact of rising petrol and food costs. “I use my car an awful lot with my work. Petrol is quite a large part of my weekly budget.” She adds: “We very rarely eat out. I must admit, if we have an indulgence, it is cooking the things we like.”

Fulcher has received support from Gingerbread, the charity for single parents, which offers advice and information on benefits and other issues.

How lower income earners may fare on in the Budget

• Income tax allowance The government is committed to taking low-income earners out of tax by gradually raising the income tax allowance to £10,000. The allowance is due to increase by £630 a year to ensure the £10,000 target is met by April 2015, although senior Lib Dems would like to see this accelerated.

We will find out on in the Budget whether they have had any success with their lobbying.

In April 2011 the personal allowance for people under 65 rose from £6,475 to £7,475 for the 2011-12 tax year, and it has already been announced that next month it will rise again to £8,105 for 2012-13.

However, the basic rate limit will fall by £630, taking it from £35,000 in 2011-12 to £34,370 in 2012-13 to ensure higher-rate taxpayers do not benefit from the increase. In 2010-11 the basic rate limit stood at £37,400.

• Tax Credits See above.

• VAT The standard rate of VAT rose from 17.5% to 20% in January 2011, and there have been plenty of calls for it to be cut to stimulate growth and ease the pressure on household budgets.

Personal finance and money news, analysis and comment | guardian.co.uk