I've just found out, thanks to the BBC, that Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford, claimed £22,000 last year for his additional living allowance, and then a further £3000 on travel expenses. And those travel expenses are supposed to be for his constituency business.

That's Ilford. Zone 4. Outer London.

My travelcard, which gives 24 hour travel for a year, is £1400, give or take. I have to pay for that.

A taxi from Westminster to Ilford costs roughly £40 after midnight. Maybe £50 feistyredhead used to often have to get a cab home if she worked on an event that went on after the tubes finished. Her work paid for that. I don't have a problem with that.

But do the maths.

Parliament doesn't sit late any more - deliberately to make it family friendly. Mike Gapes could have a travelcard, and get a taxi home twice a week, and it would cost £7,400.

Why is he allowed to claim £25,000 instead?

I've sent him the following message. I'm going to be interested in his response.

Dear Mr Gapes,

Given the scandal enveloping the Houses of Commons at the moment concerning MPs expenses, I was wondering if you'd care to comment on the fact that the BBC are alleging that you claimed £22,000 for a second home allowance in 2007 / 8?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm

If their allegation is true, I'm assuming one of your two homes is in Ilford, where I live.

Ilford, which is in Zone 4.

Ilford, which is about an hour away from Westminster by public transport, and about the same by car.

Mr Gapes - how many of your constituents do you think work in the centre of London? And of those, how many would you estimate have the luxury of getting £22,000 per year to obtain and maintain a property closer to where they work in addition to a salary at least twice the national average?

Yours sincerely,

John Scott

My gas account is sorted.

And it should come as no surprise to those of you who have been following this somewhat sorry saga that Brian, the Saint of Customer Service, has just been on holiday "taking photographs of buses and coaches."

It's somewhat of a hobby of his.

I've just printed out the letter I'm going to be sending to the head of Customer Relations at npower, thanking them for Brian's efforts on my behalf.

You may or may not be aware that earlier this month, it became illegal to photograph or video a police officer or soldier if the resulting images are "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Read that carefully.

It doesn't suggest that the photographer has to have the intent of committing a terrorist act. Just that the photos are likely to be useful to someone who is. So if I take a photograph of a police officer, and then my camera is stolen by a terrorist, and they then use the photo to identify a member of Her Majesty's Constabulary, I could be liable for prosecution. It also doesn't matter if they're serving or retired; in uniform or in plain clothes.

severe_delays has some interesting thoughts on the matter.

I particularly like the thought raised in the comments that any shop that has CCTV will now, for the sake of their own legal well being, have to ban all police officers, soldiers or members of the intelligence services from any areas covered by CCTV.

Oh - and expect mass arrests at the next Changing of the Guard. All those tourists? Potentially aiding terrorists.

Sheesh.

I know you're all waiting for the latest installment with bated breath ....

I received a letter from the blessed Brian (see paens of praise passim) saying that it had all worked out okay, and that as of December 20th, my meter reading was XXXX and my outstanding balance was 4p. (XXXX being a plausible number, and certainly a lot nearer to my actual meter reading than the one they had previously, which was 9000 units away).

Now, I find that the 4p balance is awfully convenient - after all, it means that they haven't been overcharging me while they've been messing up my account. But I wasn't sure that I was willing to argue this too much. After all, once I'm happy that they're looking at the right numbers, I can argue for compensation then cancel my account with them. So frankly, I'll take that.

Except I got an email last night saying that my bill had been updated, and, more ominously, "Important: There’s additional information on this bill which you should take the time to read as it may affect the payment amount or due date.".

Really?

Would that important information be the fact that I'm now £60 in debit, rather than 4pence perhaps? Could nPower be juggling the numbers somewhat? Could they be undermining the efforts of their own Executive Complaints team?

So, once more, game on.

Only this time I have an 0800 number and a name.

Torpedoes in the water.

You know, I think the banks are a lot to blame for phishing phone calls and emails.

They tell us that we shouldn't give out details of our account, or our security questions without knowing who we're giving them to, but have you ever actually tried to challenge one of them when they phone you?

I know I've blogged about this before, but I had a conversation on Wednesday that went something like this.

My phone rings. The number is withheld. I answer.

Them: "Hello - this is Barclays. We need to clarify a few details. Can I get you to answer some security questions first?"

Me: "That depends. What is this concerning?"

Them: "I'm sorry, I can't tell you that until you've confirmed who you are."

Me: "I'm not answering any questions until you can confirm who you are. What's my account number?"

Them: "I can't tell you that until I can confirm who you are. What's your date of birth?"

Me: "I'm not answering that until you can confirm ..."

etc. etc. ad infinitum.

The worst of it is that they always seem so affronted that I'm daring to question them. Yet I'm pretty sure that if I rang up and said "my identity has been stolen and I think it was because someone rang up and asked me for my date of birth and my mother's maiden name and they said they were you so I gave it to them" they'd say that I was the one at fault.

The banks need to catch up. They need to stop asking us to go to paperless statements, but then demanding to see original copies of our last statements before proceeding with a mortgage application or bank loan. They need to work out that trust is a two-way process and that if they want us to be careful with our identity, they need to work out some secure way for us to identify them.

If they want us to be more secure, they have to be more secure too.

In the end, I said I'd call the person back. He said "Here's my phone number" at which I laughed, and said I'd look up the Barclays Customer Service number on the web - if I didn't trust him enough to give him my details, I wasn't going to trust any phone number he gave me either.

I think he thought I was paranoid.

Further to this cheery little post I received a chirpy answerphone message from some woman from nPower's Complaints department saying "We've checked our records and nothing is wrong, so we've closed your complaint".

Which is lovely, and I'm glad that she's so happy, but when my complaint is that their records are at fault, using them as the method of determining whether or not my complaint is valid or not, and therefore whether it needs to be actioned or not is a little stupid, no?

It will surprise no-one that I have been on hold for 20 minutes without talking to a human being yet. But it's okay, because "my call is important to us".

Do they not realise that the longer I'm on hold, the more shit they're going to get? Surely someone in the call centre business has worked out that simple equation?

I would consider going to the watchdogs about this, but frankly, they're EnergyWatch whose website is at http://www.energywatch.org.uk/

Anyone following that link will see why I'm not holding out great hopes for them to be my best advocate.
( Read more... )

No02ID are asking people who signed their pledge against ID cards in 2005 to send them cash for a legal defence fund - not unreasonable, given that that's what people signed up for.

http://www.no2id.net/pledge/index.php

Despite not signing at the time (at least, I'm pretty sure I didn't, and haven't received my email from them saying "you remember that tenner you said we could have ....?") I'm sending them cash now.

I may be over-reacting though - after all, it's not like the government have ever proved that they might have a problem keeping personal data secure, is it?