There are not many customers scarier than a bride-to-be on the prowl for her wedding dress. So I was intrigued to learn that some wedding dress shops are now charging fees ranging from £25 to £50 just to try on gowns. The move is designed to get rid of time-wasters, including some girls who are not even getting married (scary, huh?).

The move comes after the use of cameras was banned in many boutiques following increasing numbers of women who try on their dream dress, photograph it and then get it copied for a fraction of the price.

"Quite a few shops have started to charge now, and I can see why retailers are doing it," says Deborah Joseph, editor of Brides magazine. "Charging for an appointment forces a bride to think about whether or not she is serious about buying a dress from that particular designer. The first fitting can take an hour, and a woman will probably try on six different styles of dress."

"We offer a very specialist service, so we do charge a consultation fee," admits Sally Wright, of bridal couturier Phillipa Lepley. "All of our assistants are trained professionals with years of experience, so they know how to help brides pick a dress that will hide problem areas and enhance their best features. Even people who don't end up buying a dress from us will often recommend the service to their friends," Ms Wright says.

You may not be blatantly parted from crisp notes amid the taffeta though - look out for 'appointment fees', 'consultation fees' and 'deposits'. Some retailers may deduct the fee from the cost of the dress if you decide to buy it. Alternatively, petite brides can get as much as 70% at designer sample sales. The high street is offering more choice than ever - head to Monsoon, Coast and Debenhams or one of Oxfam's 10 bridal shops (where most of the gowns are donated from designers and bridal shops and are sold at around 30% of their original price) for lovely off-the-peg gowns.

Have your say.. Are you a bride-to-be who would refuse to pay a try-on fee? Perhaps you run a bridalwear shop and are fed up with time-wasters? Are high street dresses the way forward? Leave your comments below....

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Forget the credit crunch, Equitable Life and soaring petrol costs. The debate buxom women everywhere are most concerned about is the 'storm in a DD cup' at Marks & Spencer.

The high street favourite sells around 20million bras a year in the UK, that's 45 every minute. But it has recently padded its costs with a £2 surcharge on bras  above DD cup, saying the cost of the extra work and material justifies the higher price.

Now a Facebook group - Bras4Justice - has been set up to lobby M&S over its policy. Campaigners say that the pricing is discriminating against the more well-endowed and point out that the other items of clothing, such as T-shirts and trousers, are the same price regardless of size. "If you don't charge a size 20 woman more for a pair of trousers, then why should you pay more for an E cup bra?," says one curvaceous contributor.

I can see that more work goes into making a bra than a T-shirt, or even trousers. But what would the alternative be? To spread the extra costs of the big bras across all bras?

Michelle Mone who owns the Ultimo lingerie range also charges more (£3) for bigger sizes and has a more detailed explanation for the costs: "From a technical aspect, when you go up from a DD cup to a G cup, it takes three times longer to develop than an A-D cup," she told the Evening Standard. "It costs more for the wires and straps and then there's the shipping. It costs an extra 25p to ship bras above DD. If God has given you that gift, that is the price you have to pay," she says.

Is this discrimination or is it perfectly acceptable for retailers to pass on the extra cost? Leave your comments below....

Photo: Marks & Spencer

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Since my last blog highlighting the US trend of companies selling us smaller products for the same price - known as short-sizing - the claims of UK shrinkage have been coming in thick and fast from msn users. You see, size does matter. So here's your supermarket sweep of shrinking items.... Thanks for all your feedback. Let's keep the list - and awareness - going.  Send me a message or leave a comment below....                                                                                                            Basics...

• "Tescos have changed the packages for their Bakery "Tiger" bread - you now get 600g instead of 800g."
• Shredded Wheat - many of you pointed out that there are 27 in a pack instead of 30. All for the same price.
• "Muller Vitality yogurts were 150g they have just shrunk to 125g and are still at the same price."
  "My wife used to buy Onken Lite fruit Mousses. These are now 1/3 smaller but are still the same price."
• "Organic Weetabix has recently reduced it's 'biscuit' size. Because it's sold as a multipack, there's no need to put a weight on the pack, but the nutritional information has changed and the pack is slightly smaller - but there are still 24 biscuits in a pack and that's how it's sold - very cunning!"
• "The obvious one is Pringles. They still come in the same size tubes but now hold 170g rather than 200g. There are still a few flavours with 200g in the tubes but most are now 170g."
• "Tesco sea salt that was in a 500g container was 93p is now sold in a 350g and is the same price."
• "Streamline jam was 480g for £1.19 is now 350g and is the same price."

Meat, fish, poultry, ready meals...

• "Tesco barbecue wings used to be 14 pieces--it's now 10."
• "I've bought Waitrose minced beef for years  and it always used to be 550g but now all their minced meat is 500g for the same or more price."
• "ASDA ready meals was 6 for £4 now 5 for £4."
• "Birds Eye packs of what used to be 36 fish fingers have shrunk to 30 but the price has stayed the same."
• "Tesco changed their battered Cod fillets from 6 packs to 4 packs. They've changed the prices too but the net effect is an increase in price."
• "Look out for minced meat; beef, turkey and pork. 500g used to be the standard size but this has dropped to 450g in Asda. I also think salmon fillets have become smaller in Sainsburys but you don't notice because it 2 in a pack so you look at the quantity rather than the overall weight."

Alcohol, soft drinks, water....

• "Beer and lager from supermarkets is a culprit. I normally buy cases for cost effectiveness but the case size had already dropped a while ago from 24 to 20 but now it has reduced even further to 18 or 15."
• "The beer companies have been at it for ages with bottles. First it was a 24 pack of 330ml then it went to a 20 pack of 300ml, now its packs of 270ml and the price stays the same."
• "Strongbow have recently dropped from 18 to 15 cans in a case."
• "Tesco own brand cordial that used to be a 1 litre bottle had shrunk down to a 750 ml bottle but gone up in price by 20p."

Non-food...

• "There is more water in own brand items such as bath foam and shampoo to keep size and price the same."
• "Timotei has just changed the packaging of their product so that the cap is at the bottom - it looks smaller and costs 40p more."
• "Toilet rolls are now about three times the diameter and much thinner. The sheets have got smaller and by puffing them up with hot air in manufacture they are not as thick, and there are not so many on the roll."
• "Tesco value kitchen roll that I used to get 4 for 99p had shrunk down to just 2 rolls claiming that they are jumbo rolls."
• "A cheeky one from Tesco's as the hayfever season got under way..Tescos own brand of hayfever pills..I used to buy a box that lasted a month - one pill per day. One pill per day. The box had 2 blister packs each with 14 pills. NOW.. Same box but only HALF of the spaces are filled with pills.What a waste of packaging, what a bad consumer deal."
• "Rennie's is another brand that has shrunk package size. You used to get 96 in a box, now only 72 for the same price. And all this stress is giving me indigestion!"
• "Fairy liquid has an offer - buy 2 for £2. If you check the content its gone from 500ml to 400 ml. So we save 50p but lose 200ml."

Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate...

• "I am shocked at how small Tracker bars have become, a little like the Wagon Wheel, they seemed so much larger when I was younger!"
• "I went to pick up a multi pack of Smarties and it was always a pack of 4 but this time it was a pack of 3. The price was the same though."
• Many of you report that Cadburys dairy milk large bars have shrunk from 250g to 230g. "This was cleverly disguised by a simultaneous change in packaging."
• There have also been lots of comments about Mars bars - size and quality - but nothing firm on shrinkage for the same or higher cost.

Photo: www.mothercare.com

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

If a bill drops onto your doormat then it's pretty obvious what you are paying for and how much it costs. But with bank charges it's nowhere near as clear. Are you paying them? Any idea how much they cost each month?

Most of us don't according to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) which this week said the current account market 'is not working well' for customers. Many do not know how much they pay in bank charges and the complexity and lack of transparency of current accounts made it "extremely difficult" for people to compare their account with others.

For something that so quietly creeps into the your list of debits, these charges certainly pack a punch. The OFT says they generated a staggering £8.3 billion for banks in 2006 alone - that's more than the money made from savings and credit cards combined. Incredible. Banks are making £152 a year from every active account, and that 12.6m accounts - 23% of those in use - had incurred at least one insufficient funds charge in 2006. 1.4 million people pay more than £500 a year in bank charges. Are you one of them? 

The OFT will now talk to the banks to improve clarity for customers. Surely they can list charges in a 'Janet and John' style crib sheet and show a break down in statements for starters?

"This confirms what we've always argued - that there is no such thing as free banking," says Phil Jones of Which? "Most people have no idea how much they pay for their current account, and the market is uncompetitive. It's a catch-22 situation - people aren't switching because there's little difference between the big banks' current accounts and, because people aren't switching, banks have little incentive to compete for customers."

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) said the report had only looked at revenue and not considered the cost of running a current account. Its chief executive, Angela Knight, insisted the market was "very competitive" and dismissed the OFT's £152 average annual charge figure as "contrived" on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "Frankly, you have only got to just pick up your literature, go and look in the branch, have a look on the website and you will find that everything there is clear. Yes, you can incur charges if you do things without making arrangements first, but do you really want to pay for ATM use, pay for statements, pay for direct debits in this country? Surely people don't."

Surely Angela Knight does not expect us to believe that it costs £8.3billion a year to cover the cost of the banking blips customers make? No one expects to get an overdraft for free but it seems the difference between reasonable costs (and small profit margin) and the enormous sums being made  here is HUGE. Have your say - leave a comment below.....

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Nothing is more of a turn-off for children than a sentence that begins "When I was young.....". But even as a (relatively) young person, the contrast between my childhood experiences and the today's children increases all the time. After drying up a couple of piles of dishes and tidying my room I was rewarded each week with what to me was the princely sum of 10p. I would head off on my bike to the local shop where it was immediately invested in a copy of Whizzer and Chips and some penny sweets.

Today it was revealed that pocket money is the latest casualty of the credit crunch as parents cut back. But it is hardly surprising given the sums involved. Children receive an average of £8.01 per week in pocket money, an increase of over 600% since 1987, according to new research from Halifax's 20th Anniversary Pocket Money Survey from last year. This figure is 19p less than 2006 and it will be interesting to see what the next set of figures - due in about a week - reveal, not least because research from Axa show that about a fifth of parents have cut the amount that cash they gave to their children in the last six months.

I know it depends on the age of the child and a seven-year-old needs less than a 13-year-old. I like to think that most of them still do chores for their pocket money. By 15 I had a Saturday job to fund my Duran Duran album needs (showing my age, I know).

In the current climate I think we can expect to see parents borrowing from children to cover soaring bills. More than a million parents are thought to have already raided their children's savings accounts in January last year to tide them over after an expensive festive season, according to Yorkshire Bank. Perhaps this habit will take off and the Bank of Mum and Dad could soon be the Bank of Junior.

Have your say.... how much pocket money do you give your children and do they have to do chores? Have you ever dipped into your child's savings account? Do you still borrow from your parents? Leave a comment below.....

Photo: Child of the '80s website

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

We've known for a long time that the electoral roll was being flogged to various companies. And of course government departments such as the DVLA are not immune to such money-making activities. Now finally, someone has called for the council profiteering to end and a ban on the sale of electoral information to direct marketing companies (junk mail firms to you and I) looks likely.

The report from an official inquiry by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas and Dr Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, has criticised the way councils have been selling the names and addresses of tens of millions of householders to junk mail firms which send out 3billion items of rubbish each year (although perhaps this post is single-handedly keeping Royal Mail going....).

The 'edited' electoral roll currently being sold contains your name and address unless you opt out. There is a a box to tick on the electoral registration card each year but today's report says that the opt-out directions were often written in 'confusing' language, and householders did not realise what they were agreeing to. Everybody has to be on the full electoral register, but this cannot be bought or sold, and is available in paper form only. It is the edited version - containing 15million names (60% of homes) which is sold and should be scrapped.

Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the proposal amounted to a return to the pre-Internet age, with copies of the electoral roll only available in public libraries and council offices. His report said: 'We feel that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information. It sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to anyone for any purpose.' It also said the Information Commissioner should have the power to impose massive fines against companies or government bodies which deliberately or recklessly breach privacy rules.

Hooray to that. Now we just have to hope the government has the sense to implement all the recommendations. Meanwhile....useful links: 10 ways to protect your ID; Mailing Preference Service; Stop Junk Mail Campaign.

Have your say.. are you sick of junk mail? Did you miss the opt-out box on the electoral registration? Should councils be allowed to make money from our records? Leave a comment below...

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

I seem to remember the government threatening to do something to stop the huge price mark-ups for holidays when children are off school. I think they wanted to discourage money-saving mums and dads from dragging ankle-biters out of lessons during term time. The problem seems to get worse every year.

The latest research from Abbey Credit Cards has found that rates from mid-July to the first few weeks in August - when schools go on holiday - jump by more than half in some foreign resorts, and up to a whopping 162% here in the UK. It seems that regardless of destination or departure airport, holidays taken on the 9 August, when all schools have finished for summer, will be 38% more expensive than holidays taken on the 12 July, when most schools are still open. And once school starts back in September the prices drop off by an average of a third, with some resorts slashing prices by as much as half.

Of course it's not just parents who face higher prices.  Those without children have the same problem if they want to travel in late July or August.  Here are my eight tips to help you avoid the school holiday price hikes...

1. Fly from the cheapest airport. Regional airports may be more convenient they also attract the highest supplements for charter flights at peak times. The exceptions are flights with no-frills airlines which have a programme of regional fares.
2. Choose your destination carefully - France and Turkey may be cheaper than other parts of Europe. Orlando traditionally sees a jump in summer prices but the weak dollar could balance that out. Consider how far your money will go in each country before you book.
3. Book late. If you are prepared to take a gamble then booking late can pay off if you have some flexibility about when you can travel and where you want to go. Of course this may not appeal if you are potentially letting down your whole family.
4. Book early. In other words, plan for next year now and aim to book by January 2009 to save and get greater choice.  Negotiate with hotels and get confirmation of rates in writing to avoid paying more if the price goes up as peak season approaches. Holidays are expected to cost more than ever next year - up to £300 more per family per fortnight. Booking well in advance for ferries and trains is also likely to save you money.
5.  Travel late. The last two weeks of the summer holidays at the end of August are usually significantly cheaper than the late-July to mid-August peak.  You could save as much as a fifth.
6.  Depart midweek.  If you can get away mid-week then departing on pretty much any day other than a Friday or Saturday will deliver savings. Many airline websites provide a 'cheapest flight' search option to help.
7. Log on - use comparison websites to research, compare and read reviews from people who have already stayed in the hotels. Hotel websites may have special offers but packages could be cheaper overall so do your sums. Look out for specialist sites such as mousesavers.com which details every type of discount available at Disney resorts.
8. Get the best deals on currency and insurance. This means planning ahead - even a few days before you leave - rather than signing up for last minute rates.

Having trouble getting a good deal for the summer? Please share your money-saving tips and leave your comments below.....

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

How depressing to discover that 600 staff at HMRC have been disciplined in the last two years for snooping on our personal data.

The revelation by Treasury minister Jane Kennedy in a written answer to parliament showed that 192 tax staff had been disciplined last year, 180 in 2006 and 238 in 2005. Apparently 44 people were sacked for snooping over a 10-month period last year - one a week.

Some accessed information on their own friends or family but others accessed personal data for people they simply disliked. In the most serious cases, they sold the information to third parties.

In March last year, Mobolaji Olayinka, an IT consultant, was jailed for stealing more than 1,000 identities from HMRC's central database. He sold on the names, addresses, National Insurance numbers and dates of birth to a gang which made £1.3million from benefits fraud.

The House of Lords recently backed a motion to make the reckless loss or distribution of data a criminal offence. It won't come a moment too soon. But what's to stop the police taking action against the 600 (so far) people caught mis-using government data?  Answers on a postcard please.... alternatively have your say by leaving your comments below...

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Today I feel like giving myself a nice pay rise. And because we live in a crunchy financial climate, I think I'll award myself some other perks. About £24,000-worth should do the trick. That will bring me into line with our MPs.

Yes, in a so-called democracy, MPs have turned into Marie Antoinettes and voted to keep their £24,000 second home allowances. Rather like a bunch of turkeys voting to ban Christmas. All this while the people of Britain face increasing struggles with soaring bills.

After months of revelations about the nature and extent of what many see as loopholes and abuses of public cash by many MPs, a review by the Commons Members Estimate Committee had recommended the additional costs allowance (ACA) be replaced and greater transparency and audits be imposed.

The rejected proposals: The Committee recommended an overnight expenses allowance capped at £19,600 a year for accommodation. MPs would also have been given a £30-a-day subsistence allowance without receipts, up to a maximum of £4,600 every year. This would have been more tightly controlled and could only have been spent on paying mortgage interest, rent or hotel bills and household bills, putting an end to the so-called "John Lewis list" - the use of public money to pay for items like new kitchens and household goods such as TVs.

MPs have rejected the need to provide receipts for all claims - how this keeps HMRC happy, quite apart from the rest of us, is anyone's guess. Incredibly, MPs had been able to claim up to £250 per item for their second homes without producing receipts - but that threshold was reduced to £25 in April. Perhaps the real crime was that it was kept quiet for so long.

The Committee had also recommended "a robust new system" of financial health checks on MPs offices. There would have been a more thorough auditing system.

What they keep: The John Lewis list - meaning MPs will continue to be free to charge iPods, dishwashers and improvements for their second homes to the public purse.

Instead of a plan for external audits on expenses claims covering up to a quarter of MPs every year, each member will face internal financial checks just once every four years - by which time they could have lost their seat and disappeared into the sunset.

The principle: The sums involved in the new proposals may not have been very different from the ones in force but the freedom of public servants to pick and choose how they use public funds is just wrong.  Yes if they truly need a second home (and not all of them do) then it needs furniture but this all needs much greater scrutiny and transparency. What is to stop them claiming the allowance for a second home but telling the taxman it is their main home and avoiding CGT, as has been alleged.

Who did and said what? The vote to keep the Additional Costs Allowance was won by 172 to 144. Some 146 Labour MPs, including 33 Government ministers, voted to keep the allowance and the John Lewis list.

David Cameron and the shadow cabinet voted for the abolition of the John Lewis list.

Gordon Brown claimed he wanted to vote the new reforms in but was kept away by a meeting at Downing Street. More than 30 government ministers opted to keep the ACA, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham and Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

Labour MP Don Touhig insisted the ACA was necessary. He said: "I think most fair-minded people would accept that the extraordinary situation of an MP needing to live both in his or her constituency and London requires an allowance to support that cost."

Tory Ann Widdecombe, who backed keeping the ACA, said MPs had to "have the guts to stand up for ourselves, to defend the system and say why it is we have that system".

Liberal Democrat Nick Harvey summed it all up nicely: "It was a total own-goal on the part of the House of Commons. An opportunity to put our house in order and be seen to put our house in order has been passed up. "They took all the nice bits of the package but not the ones they didn't like. They took the spoonful of sugar but refused the medicine."

Salaries: Meanwhile, we should be grateful that ministers salaries have been frozen at £138,000 basic and backbenchers decided against giving themselves an above inflation pay rise, opting for 2.25% instead of 3.5% but this does take their basic salaries to £62,558 - more than twice the national average. And 155 MPs did try to force through an above-inflation 4.7% rise for next year.

What do you think? Do MPs deserve the freedom they have voted for or should they be made to account for every penny? Leave your comment below....

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Let's hope they saw it coming....fortune tellers, mediums, tarot readers and astrologers are among those who face new rules on the way they do business. The new Consumer Protection Regulations which came into effect at the end of May have shaken up an area of the law untouched for 40 years and will mean a fairer deal for customers as loopholes are closed and 31 types of sales practices are banned.

Those offering to read palms and tea leaves plus faith healers, mediums and anyone offering other 'mystic' services will have to advise customers that their services are for 'entertainment purposes only' and are 'not scientifically proven'. For the past half-century, 'genuine' mediums have been protected by the 1951 Fraudulent Mediums Act (which, spookily, replaced the 1735 Witchcraft Act. Yikes). In relevant cases, the onus will now be on mediums to prove they did not mislead, coerce or take advantage of any 'vulnerable' consumers. I certainly get the impression that there has been an explosion of websites and phone lines in this market.

But just about any business which conducts sales and marketing will have to take on board the new rules. Some of the outlawed business tactics include using fake closing down sales, false testimonials online and limited-time offers that are then extended. Other banned practices include those especially likely to harm the vulnerable or elderly, such as high pressure sales techniques. The tactic known as 'bait and switch', often employed by electrical retailers will also be banned. This is where a low-price product advertised when it is not available. When the customer asks about the offer he or she is directed to a higher price product instead. 'Flogs' - fake blogs designed to create a buzz around a brand or new product will also be outlawed.

The Spiritualist Workers’ Association attacked the changes, saying “We do not believe we are conducting a scientific experiment. To have to stand up and say so is a denial of our beliefs.” Lyn Guest de Swarte, a clairvoyant, said: “It’s like trying to regulate God.” Um, yeah, right.

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

I'm all for Farmers' Markets if they allow genuine, independent producers to cut out supermarkets and get a decent income. But the one near me is often discussed for its very high prices and increasingly un-local produce.

So I'm, beginning to wonder...was there a point where the concept was hijacked and abused? Farmers' Markets have tripled in number since 2001 according to the National Farmers' Retail and Markets Association, the industry body which defines 'local' as preferably within a 30-mile radius or 50 miles if in a city or remote area.

Now Trading Standards have found that shoppers regularly pay over the odds at Farmers' Markets and are confused about the source of the produce on offer, often spending more because they think - sometimes wrongly - they are helping local farms. Many Farmers' Markets are now clamping down on sellers to ensure they are truly local and that their produce is not over-priced. Some traders have even been selling food bought from the fruit and vegetable wholesale market at Covent Garden in London, or from suppliers hundreds of miles away.

Hhmm. If someone wants to get up super-early, buy produce and then set up a stall to sell it, then good luck to them. But - and here's the rub - isn't the whole point that people buying their goods in these markets deserve to know its source so they can make an informed choice? Some may want to buy it anyway, cutting out the supermarket, but others may be looking for a good deal from a local grower. Much as I hate red tape and nannying, I suspect we are in for some new rules (to, er, make sure no one is milking it).

Have your say... is your local Farmers' Market truly local? Would you like to see a few more rules or should Trading Standards be concentrating on supermarkets instead? Leave your comments below....

Photo: www.jaysfancydress.co.uk

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon