Cold front ad for Mini backfires

2 February 2012 Last updated at 12:49 GMT Snow and ice have made many forms of travel in Germany a challenge in recent days An advertising agency for BMW has paid to name a cold weather front sweeping Europe "Cooper" in Germany, after the carmaker's Mini Cooper.

But the public-relations stunt by the agency went wrong after the freezing conditions led to dozens of deaths.

Germany's meteorology institute allows the sponsorship of weather systems.

On its website, advertising agency Sassenbach says that naming the front after the open-air vehicle was a "wind- and weather-proof idea".

It is encouraging people to follow the path of the weather on meteorological websites.

While the snow and ice have brought some stunning scenes across Europe, the freezing temperatures have led to at least 100 deaths, mainly in Poland and Ukraine.

In Ukraine alone, nearly 950 people are being treated in hospital with hypothermia and frostbite, the Associated Press news agency reports.

The Munich-based advertising agency said it was no longer commenting on the unfortunate correlation between the progress of the severe weather and the car it sought to publicise.

It has also named a warmer weather front to follow "Minnie".

BMW has apologised for the stunt, which cost the advertising firm 229 euros (£190).

In a statement, the carmaker said it could not influence exactly when names for weather fronts would be used, or what a weather system would do.

It said it deeply regretted that the weather front had taken on "catastrophic proportions" and claimed so many lives.

The meteorological institute's "Adopt a Vortex" scheme has been running since 2002, with the money raised helping to fund weather monitoring at Berlin's Free University.

The institute is the only one outside the US which names weather systems.

View the original article here

1.1 million face £100 tax fines

3 February 2012 Last updated at 13:44 GMT The deadline for the return of self-assessment details was delayed owing to industrial action Just over one million taxpayers face a penalty of £100 for failing to submit their self-assessment tax returns on time.

The figure of 1.1 million is the lowest since online filing first started, and compares with 1.4 million last year and 1.6 million the year before.

HM Revenue and Customs allowed an extra two days' grace beyond the normal 31 January deadline due to strike action.

However, 1.1 million people failed to file by the end of 2 February.

They will have to pay the £100 fine unless they have a reasonable excuse.

Valid reasons include serious illness, a bereavement, or a loss of documents because of theft, fire or flood.

After three months, additional fines of £10 a day start to accrue and could eventually amount to a maximum of £1,600.

Record numbers

Self-assessment tax forms have to be filled in by people with more complicated tax affairs or more than one source of income, for instance the self-employed or those with a high income from savings.

The latest forms were for the tax year which ended in April 2011 and altogether a record 9.45 million forms were submitted on time.

About 1.8 million had come in on paper by the paper deadline of 31 October 2011.

A further 7.65 million were submitted online - another record.

The public sector union, the PCS, held industrial action at call centres and inquiry offices to protest against the appointment of private companies to run call-handling trials in two contact centres.

This led to the self-assessment deadline being extended.

David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: "I'm delighted so many people filed their tax returns online this year. The record number proves that it's quick, easy and secure to do."

"HMRC have always been clear that they want returns not penalties, so it is good news that over 90% of all returns were submitted on time," he added.

New punishment

In previous years a fine for late filing, or for failing to pay any tax due, could not in fact be applied if the size of the fine was larger than the amount of tax owed.

So in practice some late-payers escaped punishment because they had little or no tax to hand over.

HMRC has become increasingly fed up with this hard core of persistent late-payers, hence last year's change to the rules - which has come into effect for the first time this year.

The £100 fine will now be levied automatically, unless the taxpayer can come up with a reasonable excuse.

View the original article here

Game shares soar on lending deal

3 February 2012 Last updated at 10:30 GMT Continue reading the main story Shares in the video game retailer Game Group have jumped 40% after lenders, led by state-backed RBS, revised the firm's banking arrangements.

Game said the new arrangements would allow it "to continue to trade".

Game Group shares plunged by more than a third in November after the retailer cut its revenue forecast.

It is now predicting an underlying pre-tax loss of about £18m for the year to the end of January.

The firm has also agreed to provide an updated strategic plan for review by its lenders, which also include HSBC and Barclays.

All aspects of the business's activities and strategy will be reviewed, including its 664-store overseas operations.

"Management may look to exit parts or all of its international operations to reduce losses and to raise cash," said Singer Capital Markets analyst Mark Photiades.

In September, Game reported a £51.5m pre-tax loss and its share price has fallen over 70% since the start of the year.

Game has seen its business eroded by competition from online-only retailers such as Steam and Amazon, with Game holding on to 19% of the online market.

View the original article here

New Virgin staff pay for checks

3 February 2012 Last updated at 23:53 GMT By Bob Howard Reporter, Money Box Virgin Atlantic requires all new staff to pay for their own security checks Virgin Atlantic is forcing hundreds of new staff each year to pay for their own criminal record checks after referring them to an employment screening firm.

New staff at the airline's call centre in Swansea have been asked to pay £25 for the background check.

Department of Transport rules require criminal checks for air-side staff but not for other airline employees.

Virgin Atlantic says its recruitment process has to be extremely thorough.

The airline employs around 8,500 people worldwide and recruits hundreds of staff in the UK each year.

The issue was highlighted after a recent graduate contacted BBC Radio 4's Money Box programme.

Having recently been offered a job in Virgin Atlantic's call centre, she says she was contacted by a firm called Procius, which does pre-employment screening on behalf of Virgin Atlantic.

The graduate, who did not want to be identified, says she was asked to create an online profile with Procius.

Continue reading the main story

Safety and security within the airline industry is of paramount importance and Virgin Atlantic has to be extremely thorough throughout the recruitment process”

End Quote Virgin Atlantic "Before the online profile could be completed, I was requested to pay £25 to cover the costs of the reference check.

She told Money Box there was no mention of a fee when Virgin Atlantic first contacted her about Procius, and she did not like having to pay the fee before really understanding what the check was for.

However, she felt obliged to pay the fee if she wanted to secure the job she was being offered.

Virgin Atlantic and Procius say the £25 was for a criminal record check.

Procius insists that this is made clear when employees are asked to make the payment.

Such checks are often outsourced to agencies by big firms who want to check the credentials of people who they offer jobs to.

The Trades Union Congress believes the number of firms requesting checks, either directly or through pre-employment screening firms, is growing.

Helen Reid, the TUC's senior employment rights officer, says firms should be paying the fees to cover such checks, not newly employed staff:

"They should be footing the bill," said Ms Reid.

"It's unreasonable to expect people - particularly who've faced unemployment for a long period of time - to pay £25 in order to be considered for a job."

The graduate undergoing the check following her job offer from Virgin Atlantic says that if the company wanted to screen her, it was in a much better position to absorb the cost than she was:

"I have been left feeling that I am being taken advantage of by companies who are well aware of how difficult it is to find employment, and have realised that they can charge ridiculous fees for even the simplest reference check."

In a statement Virgin Atlantic said: "Safety and security within the airline industry is of paramount importance and Virgin Atlantic has to be extremely thorough throughout the recruitment process.

"In common with many other employers, we ask all new employees to pay a £25 fee for a criminal record check."

The requirements of other employers in the airline industry varies.

British Airways says air-side staff who require a criminal record check have to pay themselves, whilst BMI says it pays for its staff to get their security clearance.

Servisair, the ground handling firm, says it asks staff to pay themselves but then refunds them when they start working for the company.

Money Box is broadcast on Saturdays at 12:00 GMT on BBC Radio 4 and repeated on Sundays at 21:00 GMT. You can listen again via the BBC iPlayer or by downloading Money Box podcast.

View the original article here

'Sale and rent back' closed down

3 February 2012 Last updated at 12:54 GMT Jane and Richard Hudson told the BBC in 2008 how they lost their home in a sale and rent back deal The sale and rent back industry has been almost completely closed down, says the Financial Services Authority.

Nearly four years after regulators first responded to complaints, the remaining firms have stopped selling the controversial deals.

Distressed home owners would sell their homes at a discount to firms that then promised to let them stay as tenants.

The FSA said most deals "were either unaffordable or unsuitable and never should have been sold".

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated the industry in 2008 after tens of thousands of home owners sold their homes to companies offering them tenancies as an alternative to being repossessed.

The regulator estimated at the time that about 50,000 such deals had been struck, and concluded that the industry, which had more than 1,000 firms involved, should be regulated.

The OFT found that home owners who entered such deals might be cheated if they were misled into believing their tenancies might last for a long time, or if their rents were subsequently increased to levels they could not afford.

Proper regulation

The FSA took over formal regulation of these businesses in 2009 and has, in effect, scared most of them off.

Since then there have only been 61 such sale and rent back transactions.

Rules brought in by the FSA in 2010 laid down that any new deals had to offer a tenancy lasting at least five years.

Only 22 firms stayed in the market, but the FSA said that one way or another they had now all stopped doing business.

"The FSA has referred one firm to its enforcement division while others have either stopped taking on new business or cancelled their permissions," the FSA said.

"Effectively, this means the entire sale and rent back market is temporarily shut," it added.

Fraud

Despite new rules and formal regulation, a subsequent FSA investigation of the 22 authorised firms starting in March last year found a litany of failings and poor practice that had continued to put customers at risk.

Among the problems had been inappropriate and unaffordable deals, failure to discuss key facts with customers, incorrect information, breaches of the FSA's rules on financial promotions, and poor training, record keeping and levels of competence.

Nausicaa Delfas, of the FSA, said: "The resulting temporary closure of this market could have been avoided if sale and rent back firms had taken the time to fully understand their regulatory responsibilities and customers' needs."

"It seems most were more focussed on their own commercial success rather than the welfare of the customers, with one firm even resorting to fraud."

Redress?

Customers who took out a sale and rent back deal before the FSA started regulating the industry will not have the benefit of financial protection from the FSA and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

Peter Vicary-Smith, of the consumers association Which?, said: "It's welcome news that the FSA has taken action to stop people falling prey to shoddy advice from sale and rent back firms."

"Which? exposed the shortcomings of this market last year, after our own investigation uncovered woefully inadequate advice.

"We now want to see redress for those consumers who have been given poor advice by sale and rent back companies, and for this to happen quickly."

View the original article here

Uganda signs oil production deal

3 February 2012 Last updated at 13:06 GMT Uganda holds oil reserves which could produce 200,000 barrels a day Uganda's government has signed production agreements with the London-based company Tullow oil.

The deals pave the way for a $10bn (£6bn) investment in a refinery and crude oil export pipeline.

Tullow will sell two-thirds of its interest in the Lake Albert Rift Basin to a Chinese company, CNOOC and the French firm, Total.

The deal is worth $2.9bn and ends a deadlock with the Ugandan government over future taxes.

Uganda's Oil Minister Irene Muloni said Tullow had accepted the government's revisions to "stabilisation clauses" which are included in the contracts to protect companies from future losses if the government alters tax laws.

Tullow spokesman George Cazenove said the company is happy with the clauses.

"It's important to remember that the Lake Albert Rift Basin development will be a long-term development for Uganda over many years - there's a lot of oil there," Mr Cazenove told the BBC.

"There will be a refinery in Uganda as well as a pipeline."

The oil deposits and refinery should be large enough to meet Uganda's needs, as well as those of some its neighbours, including eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

View the original article here