Jump to content

NadJ

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. I live in an area of NE London where the theft of new Mercs and BMWs is an every day occurrence. The police now quite literally decide not to give a toss. They do not even show up to view CCTV imagery. Father in law had his stolen, sister-in-law's father-in-law also had his attempted to be stolen twice in 2 weeks and today I learned the owner of a small lettings business had his stolen and stripped down whilst the thieves attempted to find a tracker (causing £12,000 worth of damage). The police have now stated they don't have the time or resources to come down, perform forensics or investigate. For this last one, a crime reference number was given on the phone and the victim was asked not to bother coming in and just deal with the insurance company.. It's a f***ing pandemic and the s**tty security behind £50k vehicles has got to be one of the biggest scandals today. Yet, idiots refuse to accept the reality and continue to buy this garbage. I drive a 10 year old car but am paying a premium for living in a "high risk area". Last year, my insurance was £950, this year £1,200 despite no changes on my part. 1.5 miles down the road I can get insurance for £800. Out of all the thefts over the last year, I seriously doubt 10 year old cars were targeted. I seriously doubt Ford Focus' and Vauxhall Corsas' were on the thieves' list. Yet we all suffer... My question is WHY? Why do I have to suffer for the expensive choices about 1% of the local population make? Why not increase the insurance premiums for those who decide to buy £50k cars with mediocre levels of security? The answer is of course that no one would then buy those vehicles, and the insurance companies wouldn't have any premium customers and the motor trade itself would suffer because the ****ty cars they sell would not be insurable. So what can someone like me do about this short of moving out of the area? Where can we start in order to have this car insurance company practice of spreading the burden on to the entire local population looked at? Any ideas? Thanks
  2. The same thing happened to me 11 days ago and I was left horribly inconvenienced. What happened as a result of me not being able to get the cash cost me dearly. I was about to make a large cash purchase and using my VISA debit card inserted it into a Natwest ATM in Crawley, everything seemed normal. Pin accepted, daily limit OK, the machine even spent what seemed like an age counting the cash, then at the last minute the message "Unable to dispense cash" or similar. Tried again and got the message "Your daily withdrawal limit has been reached". Called the bank and they confirmed money has been debited. So I want to find out, how can this be accepted in this day and age? The money is debited from our accounts if the ATM has the intention of dispensing the cash and cares not about the actual act of dispensing. The result is, your daily limit is chewed into and you are left out of cash and inconvenienced for the rest of the day. Can you imagine, walking into a retailer with the intention of buying a coat you like but at the last minute you notice that the money is not in your pocket, or the zip on your wallet is screwed and wont let you get to the note, BUT YOU DECIDE TO TAKE THE COAT home anyway without paying for it? That would be called theft! That's exactly what the ATM did and despite being told it would automatically "fix" itself 48 hours later, it hasn't and so far no money has been returned despite a dispute being filed straight away. I'm trying to find out the name of a regulating body (who oversees the way ATMs are run?). Please help if you know. Thanks
  3. Thanks for your reply and the link
  4. For FY 2010-2011 I was a contractor and the director of my own Ltd company paying myself a £12k annual salary. On top of this, I paid myself a couple of thousand in dividends each month. On the annual tax credit returns form I failed to specify the dividends because I received some lousy advice from a tax credit officer to say that I do not need to declare these. It all sounds incredibly silly now but it was all new to me at the time and I didn't challenge as well as I should've, combine this with the fact that the "Other Income" box on the form mentions pretty much everything except for dividends. It could be she misunderstood the question but the answer, and I remember it vividly, was that I do not need to "worry about this". I even remember telling my wife about it at the time and we were both very surprised. If there is a recording of the phone conversation then I'm sure I'm covered and correct about what I heard. About 6 months after the FY ended and after I submitted my company accounts (which of course clearly showed the dividend payments), I became very uncomfortable with the idea that I didn't need to "worry about" my dividends, so I called the support line again only to hear them confirm what I feared. So right there and then I declared that the income information provided for FY 2010-2011 was wrong and needed a major update of around some £30k! I explained the situation and was told that as the correction was for the previous period, it could take up to 3 months for someone to look into this and fix. I've chased them up twice and every time I call they do not seem concerned and have no appreciation of my desire to fix the mess. It's now 8 months on and nothing has been done. At the very least I would've expected them to drastically reduce current payments. So, what do I do about this as I'm not getting anywhere with an update? I hate things like this occupying my mental state and the current system offers no feedback or case update. I really wouldn't want them to write to me in 3 years accusing me of fraud once they've linked the director dividend payments with the declared income for that year!
  5. Sorry, allow me to clarify. The training continuity is what they cite but the reality is different. You can do your training in a continuous manner (not part time) if you choose at your choice of flight school. The difference is their preferred schools don't allow it as a matter of policy. In reality it's just smokes and mirrors designed to line the pockets of their buddies at the bigger flight schools whilst taking advantage of outside industry ignorance. But again, does it not matter the regulating bodies accept both styles of teaching in order to grant a license? yet the airline can discriminate by favouring those who have completed their training at the bigger (buddy buddy) schools? Airlines are able to price and policy fix how much we pay for our training by teaming up with horrendously expensive training establishments who have sole exclusivity for sending graduates forward for jobs. Is there not even an anti-competition argument here? It is accepted as a professional qualification by this government yet employment opportunities will not come your way unless you line the correct pockets along the way. I dunno, maybe I'm naive but it just doesn't sound right.
  6. I am a UK based commercial pilot who has just landed my first job after nearly 4 years since graduating. Myself and my peers (late 20s, early 30s) have suffered long and hard due to lack of opportunities. During this period, 4 out 5 UK airlines were busy hiring pilots who completed their training at the airlines' "preferred" schools. Yes, guys who started their training 2 years ago were flying a year later whilst applications from us were not even invited ! That’s right, these jobs are not even advertised. The qualifications achieved by us are identical to those who have gained them at the "preferred" schools with one difference, the other guys paid approx double the price we did and at flight schools who are headed up by former employees of the airlines or best buddies of those who head up the recruitment departments at airlines – The “old boys” network. The other graduates are primarily 18 to 22 year olds (much younger). Upon graduation the vast majority go into their first jobs with over €100,000 of debt and thus are keen to take up whatever offers the airlines lay down on the table in order to start earning and paying the debt off. The airlines offer them deals that capitalise on their relative naivety and lack of need for job stability and good conditions. The only offer is a summer contract (with a promise of offering the same the following summer) paying by the hour worked, and the airline gets to decide when you work! Furthermore the contract stipulates that the airline can base you anywhere within Europe with 1 weeks’ notice and the cost of relocating and living is entirely yours! You can see why these guys are preferred over 30 year olds who require a steady salary and a basing policy that offers some sort of life stability. Airline pilot recruitment in this country is so heavily price and policy fixed (you can only get a job now if you go to one of 2 big schools) that it favours those who have no other objective in life and will do it at any cost to their future (debt for 10 years). Those who choose to do their training at smaller schools, often part time to work around family/work life and above all debt free, are ignored by the airlines who cite lack of “training continuity” as their primary reason for rejecting us, even though we pass the same exams and the same flight tests (often with the same independent examiners!) to the same standard. There is only one standard – that which rewards you with a qualification. This practise might sound horrific to a lot of people but is now the industry norm. The public relishes cheap fares but the only way these are achieved is by the airlines following a 'hire the cheapest labour' policy even if it means blatant age discrimination. These young pilots don’t complain for fear of losing their only means of paying of debt but I’m a little different in that I have an alternative career and though I love my new job, it’s not everything. If I can fight for what’s right, then I’ll do it. I have 2 questions: Can the airlines reject candidates based on WHERE they completed their training, even though it’s to the same qualifying standards? What can be said about a recruitment practise which by design only attracts those of a lesser age and who don’t mind becoming heavily in debt? Is this not ageism by proxy? What can be done about it?
×
×
  • Create New...