Why do companies rip off UK customers?

davholla said:
So how does it work out for housing? I find hard to believe that 95% of the world find it harder to pay for housing than we (I could believe it for other things, although 5% of the world seems a bit small, the USA, UK, France and Germany are more than 5% together).
Click to expand...

People in France and Germany rent rather than buy. I don't actually know that is cheaper, but it is here. When I got divorced, the rent for my new home was less than the mortgage on my old home.
 
woof woof said:
I suppose we're getting off thread a bit here but when abroad I've seen people living under corrugated iron sheets in fields in Thailand and in wooden shacks with no services what so ever in temperatures of -20 in central asia. That's how much of the world lives. And on housing, maybe it's a British thing that we're obsessed with owning a house, much of the world rents.
Click to expand...

Someone must own the houses.
 
woof woof said:
Yup but most people don't and they don't seem to have a problem with not owning, unlike the British.
Click to expand...
It’s also possible (no idea) that the people paying rent are also investing their money in rented properties/companies in that business.
 
davholla said:
So how does it work out for housing? I find hard to believe that 95% of the world find it harder to pay for housing than we (I could believe it for other things, although 5% of the world seems a bit small, the USA, UK, France and Germany are more than 5% together).
Click to expand...

I don't know if the cost of living regarding mortgage or rent is included in the ppp dollar wealth I was talking about.

However, you are probably looking at this side of wealth from the wrong angle.

Who has the higher net worth after 20 years;

A. The person taking home 1k per month, paying rent if £500, and having more disposable income left, but no housing asset.

Or,

B. The person taking home 1k per month, paying a mortgage of £650, and having less disposable income left, but an owned outright housing asset.
 
Craig_85 said:
Who has the higher net worth after 20 years;

A. The person taking home 1k per month, paying rent if £500, and having more disposable income left, but no housing asset.

Or,

B. The person taking home 1k per month, paying a mortgage of £650, and having less disposable income left, but an owned outright housing asset.
Click to expand...
A - because they have had no maintenance costs for 20 years and when they moved, they had no estate agent's fees, no solicitor's fees, no stamp duty so their savings account/pension is very much higher.
 
john.margetts said:
A - because they have had no maintenance costs for 20 years and when they moved, they had no estate agent's fees, no solicitor's fees, no stamp duty so their savings account/pension is very much higher.
Click to expand...

Just no.

£650 x 12 x 20 = £156,000. Less interest and fees you mention, plus appreciation.

Assuming the person who only pays £500 in rent saves all of the increased disposable income.

£150 x 12 x 20 = £36,000. Less tax, plus investment gains.
 
Craig_85 said:
Just no.

£650 x 12 x 20 = £156,000. Less interest and fees you mention, plus appreciation.

Assuming the person who only pays £500 in rent saves all of the increased disposable income.

£150 x 12 x 20 = £36,000. Less tax, plus investment gains.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I think your figures are a little off there. Where's the mortgage interest? How much of that £650 went to the bank/building society?
 
jakeblu said:
Hmmm, I think your figures are a little off there. Where's the mortgage interest? How much of that £650 went to the bank/building society?
Click to expand...
Also, where is 20 years property maintenance? And it assumes you never move.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Hmmm, I think your figures are a little off there. Where's the mortgage interest? How much of that £650 went to the bank/building society?
Click to expand...

Craig_85 said:
Just no.

£650 x 12 x 20 = £156,000. Less interest and fees you mention, plus appreciation.

Assuming the person who only pays £500 in rent saves all of the increased disposable income.

£150 x 12 x 20 = £36,000. Less tax, plus investment gains.
Click to expand...

House appreciation will far outweigh interest paid over 20 years anyway.

I don't want to get into semantics over my made up example figures.

The point I am making was to @davholla thaf suggested we are worse off because we struggle to pay our mortgages.

I'm arguing that those costs are making us rich.

The guy living in a shanty town in Brazil obviously doesn't have a £650 per month mortgage. But he doesn't have an asset worth thousands, just a sheet of tin over his head.
 
john.margetts said:
Also, where is 20 years property maintenance?
Click to expand...

That really adds up to the difference of £120,000 in my admittedly made up example figures.

The point remains, just because you feel poorer by having to pay a mortgage on top of your sky tv bill and for your take away evening meal and central heating gas bill you are still in the richest 5% of people in the world. Strangely, because you have these things and are also purchasing an appreciating asset worth hundreds of thousands.
 
When £100 + $200 I had an absolute field day buying Estwing hammers from the USA and selling them in the UK.
I was probably making 100% profit sometimes on hammers lol.

Even now I bought a cordless jigsaw for £85 inc delivery and tax.
Same one in UK is £130 in cheaper places online or more like £140 in local builders shops etc
 
ecoleman said:
That’s marketplaces. Ie eBay and Amazon.
HMRC have no juristriction over companies like Panamoz
Click to expand...
Not Panamoz, but there are a lot of grey imports advertised on eBay. And if they are clamping down on eBay, etc. then undoubtedly they are going to be looking elsewhere on the Internet too.

And HMRC have no jurisdiction over Panamoz... they have jurisdiction over Panamoz’s customers (assuming the customer is in U.K.)
 
Eloise said:
Not Panamoz, but there are a lot of grey imports advertised on eBay. And if they are clamping down on eBay, etc. then undoubtedly they are going to be looking elsewhere on the Internet too.

And HMRC have no jurisdiction over Panamoz... they have jurisdiction over Panamoz’s customers (assuming the customer is in U.K.)
Click to expand...

They always have had, but they are under staffed, rely on the courier to collect and the companies miss declare goods. With current government funding we’re a long way away from them clamping down.

HMRC are only clamping down on eBay and Amazon because they’re a easy target and they can kill a few birds with one stone.
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
I don't actually know that is cheaper, but it is here. When I got divorced, the rent for my new home was less than the mortgage on my old home.
Click to expand...

Not always. There are plenty of places where rent is more than a mortgage in the UK.
I know plenty of people in my area who pay less in mortgage per month than the market rent for similar sized houses.

Craig_85 said:
Assuming the person who only pays £500 in rent saves all of the increased disposable income.
Click to expand...
Considering that one major reason a lot of people rent is because they can't save up a deposit, this is one heck of an assumption.

BUT, this is all way off the original subject.
One thing not mentioned yet is that the US (and Europe) are big markets and the distributors operating there will import large numbers of units at once. The UK is comparatively small and therefore given that a smaller number of units will be sold here, the shipping and admin (all the import duties and paperwork required) cost per unit will be higher.
 
It’s also worth mentioning that our consumer protection laws are significantly better (for the consumer) than those in the US. That sort of thing increases the cost of doing business
 
The UK can be a rip off. Just look at the Nikon 850. B&H in NYC are selling it for USD$3300. Add in 8% sales tax for buying over the counter and you have an all up cost of $3565. Jessops sell the camera at £3499. Allowing for an exchange rate of 1.34, B&H are selling at £2650, £850 less then Jessops. That’s enough for an air ticket to NYC, 2 nights in a hotel in Manhattan and spending money. And you wonder why the grey importers do so well......all manufacturers have to pay shipping and staffing costs so that doesn’t apply to the argument. Yes you have the import duty to pay if you import yourself if you went to NYC to do this but the chances of getting stopped at LHR are pretty minimal, most of the times I go through there Customs is unmanned. Rip off Britain......
 
Andrew Smith said:
The UK can be a rip off. Just look at the Nikon 850. B&H in NYC are selling it for USD$3300. Add in 8% sales tax for buying over the counter and you have an all up cost of $3565. Jessops sell the camera at £3499. Allowing for an exchange rate of 1.34, B&H are selling at £2650, £850 less then Jessops. That’s enough for an air ticket to NYC, 2 nights in a hotel in Manhattan and spending money. And you wonder why the grey importers do so well......all manufacturers have to pay shipping and staffing costs so that doesn’t apply to the argument. Yes you have the import duty to pay if you import yourself if you went to NYC to do this but the chances of getting stopped at LHR are pretty minimal, most of the times I go through there Customs is unmanned. Rip off Britain......
Click to expand...
Have you read post #18?
 
Or any of the other posts?
 
Why go to the states ,before we leave the eec take a trip to Poland ,find one of there big stores the saving will worth the trip
 
Andrew Smith said:
The UK can be a rip off. Just look at the Nikon 850. B&H in NYC are selling it for USD$3300. Add in 8% sales tax for buying over the counter and you have an all up cost of $3565. Jessops sell the camera at £3499. Allowing for an exchange rate of 1.34, B&H are selling at £2650, £850 less then Jessops. That’s enough for an air ticket to NYC, 2 nights in a hotel in Manhattan and spending money. And you wonder why the grey importers do so well......all manufacturers have to pay shipping and staffing costs so that doesn’t apply to the argument. Yes you have the import duty to pay if you import yourself if you went to NYC to do this but the chances of getting stopped at LHR are pretty minimal, most of the times I go through there Customs is unmanned. Rip off Britain......
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting the 20% VAT and that if you don’t declare it at customs (if you bring back goods worth more than, iirc, £365) then you are breaking the law and face having to pay the VAT, an additional fine along with risk of the goods being confiscated and a criminal record.

Once you add VAT (and with the current exchange rates) it works out around £1 to $1.

Grey Market work on the fact that 9 times out of 10 goods sail through customs without being checked.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
Why go to the states ,before we leave the eec take a trip to Poland ,find one of there big stores the saving will worth the trip
Click to expand...
Doesn’t really work when a D850 is 16999zl (£3555) or a Sony A7r II is 11749zl (£2458) vs £2499 at Jessops and you’ll probably have difficulty claiming the Sony cashback offer if you bought in Poland.

(Yes I only checked one Polish store, afterwards I found https://www.ceneo.pl/55201215#mh=A0...efAMUlVGHolqKuXqJKUGrLEevRWHJ0T6B5KB9LCHHNGK0 which is a Polish price comparison site)
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
You’re forgetting the 20% VAT and that if you don’t declare it at customs (if you bring back goods worth more than, iirc, £365) then you are breaking the law and face having to pay the VAT, an additional fine along with risk of the goods being confiscated and a criminal record.

Once you add VAT (and with the current exchange rates) it works out around £1 to $1.

Grey Market work on the fact that 9 times out of 10 goods sail through customs without being checked.
Click to expand...

As I said, the chances of getting stopped in the nothing to declare lane at the airport is minimal as it’s rarely manned. When I came back from NYC in June there weren’t any Customs officers on duty at T5 in the green lane. I’m not suggesting you break the law, but if I wanted to get a camera in that way then I could. Thousands have brought in electrical goods without declaring them in the past. Thousands will in the future.

Or just go to HDEW and buy over the counter paying cash. Zero risk that way......
 
Andrew Smith said:
Yes. Please re-read mine.
Click to expand...

OK, just have done, you mention import duty but not VAT at 20%? So where is the saving if you fly over there, stay 2 nights, then import the item legally to the UK? Is there any saving?
 
Last edited:
Andrew Smith said:
As I said, the chances of getting stopped in the nothing to declare lane at the airport is minimal as it’s rarely manned. When I came back from NYC in June there weren’t any Customs officers on duty at T5 in the green lane. I’m not suggesting you break the law, but if I wanted to get a camera in that way then I could. Thousands have brought in electrical goods without declaring them in the past. Thousands will in the future.
Click to expand...
If the customs desk isn’t manned (and I suspect it’s manned just not visibly) then you still have to declare it. If you are saying to people “don’t bother to declare” then yes you ARE advocating people break the law. You have a £390 limit and most people’s goods will come within that limit I suspect.
 
Mr Badger said:
OK, just have done, you mention import duty but not VAT at 20%? So where is the saving if you fly over there, stay 2 nights, then import the item legally to the UK? Is there any saving?
Click to expand...

If you declare the camera at Customs on the way back into the UK the saving is minimal, probably around 10% allowing for the fact you can claim back the NYC sales tax on departure from the USA. My post demonstrates how easy I would be to simply carry the camera in without declaring it. Plenty of people have done that in the past, plenty will in the future. That is their choice.
 
Eloise said:
If the customs desk isn’t manned (and I suspect it’s manned just not visibly) then you still have to declare it. If you are saying to people “don’t bother to declare” then yes you ARE advocating people break the law. You have a £390 limit and most people’s goods will come within that limit I suspect.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people do exactly that, they break the law. That is their choice. Or go to HDEW and collect your shiny new camera from their office is South London. All the hard work is done for you that way.....
 
Andrew Smith said:
If you declare the camera at Customs on the way back into the UK the saving is minimal, probably around 10% allowing for the fact you can claim back the NYC sales tax on departure from the USA. My post demonstrates how easy I would be to simply carry the camera in without declaring it. Plenty of people have done that in the past, plenty will in the future. That is their choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they are all breaking the law (if the goods are worth more than £390).

No one is saying you can’t do it... as you say it’s your / their choice if you want to break the law, but don’t try to pretend it’s not breaking the law.
Andrew Smith said:
Plenty of people do exactly that, they break the law. That is their choice. Or go to HDEW and collect your shiny new camera from their office is South London. All the hard work is done for you that way.....
Click to expand...
As I agree it’s your / their choice. But earlier you were denying you were suggesting people break the law, when that’s exactly what you are doing.
 
Last edited:
Snip:
Andrew Smith said:
Plenty of people have done that in the past, plenty will in the future. That is their choice.
Click to expand...
As you say, it's their choice, I just hope they don't choose to moan if the NHS fails the expectations of them or their relatives, or their kids don't get the quality of education they expect for them, or they have to work another year before they can retire and claim the state pension. I know this might seem overly simplistic, but I doubt anyone likes drinking with someone who doesn't get a round in when it's their 'shout'?
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
Yes, and they are all breaking the law (if the goods are worth more than £390).

No one is saying you can’t do it... as you say it’s your / their choice if you want to break the law, but don’t try to pretend it’s not breaking the law.

As I agree it’s your / their choice. But earlier you were denying you were suggesting people break the law, when that’s exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...

In post #70 I clearly state “I’m not suggesting you break the law”. Doing what I suggested is very much breaking the law but people do it every day.
 
Andrew Smith said:
In post #70 I clearly state “I’m not suggesting you break the law”. Doing what I suggested is very much breaking the law but people do it every day.
Click to expand...
I know what your post #70 says... but just because you say “I’m not suggesting you break the law” doesn’t mean that your posts this evening haven’t been (IMO) doing just that. If you weren’t suggesting people broke the law, your first post would have acknowledged that what you were suggesting was illegal.

Your whole post was based on the premis that you may as well fly to NY, buy a camera and bring it back through LHR because no one will catch you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top