Although presented as a freeze, the mayor's new fares package will increase many public transport fares by more than inflation and add to the cost of living burden on Londoners

The top layer of spin on Boris Johnson's latest announcement of higher public transport fares was pretty much peeled away by the end of Tuesday. His morning press release proclaimed "mayor freezes fares in real terms for 2014" and the headline of the Boris-backing Evening Standard, which was favoured with an exclusive advance briefing, proclaimed a freeze with no "real terms" qualification. By tea-time, though, the devils had been flushed out of the detail. They show that most passengers face an above-inflation fares rise in the New Year - the sixth in a row under Johnson during a period when Londoners' "real terms" wages have been falling.

Johnson highlighted "an average rise" in fares matching the retail price index inflation figure for July, which is the usual benchmark. This July it was 3.1%. Yet every Oyster or "contactless" card pay-as-you-go (PAYG) bus and tram journey by an adult will cost an extra five pence from January, pushing the price up from £1.40 to £1.45 - an increase of 3.6%. The bus is by far the most-used of London's public transport services and is also the one most likely to be taken by people on low wages. Not much of a "freeze" there. The same goes for Tube and Overground fares in Zone 1. These will go up from £2.10 to £2.20, a rise of 4.8%.

Then there's the weekly, monthly and annual travelcards bought by over half of London's public transport passengers. These will go up by between 3.9% and 4.3%. The mayor and Transport for London (TfL) have limited powers over the cost of these as they also cover Network Rail (NR) services in London. Government guidance is that NR fares should go up by 4.1%. As TfL's formal "request for mayoral decision" shows, the travelcard rise reflects that link. The genuine freezing of fares - no increase at all - is primarily applied to Tube fares outside of Zone 1 and also Zone 2 at off-peak times, when a 10p hike will also be applied.

So it's a revenue balancing act which comes up with the magic "overall" number of 3.1% and can therefore be presented by the mayor as a sort of freeze - a "bearing down" - even though a great big chunk of fares haven't been frozen at all, however you define the word. TfL calculates that the changes will bring in an extra £115m a year, mostly comprising £39m from the buses and £68m from the Tube.

For all the PR smoke and mirrors, though, shouldn't we be grateful for small mercies? After all, most Johnson fares increases have averaged RPI plus two percent and TfL's finances are strained. Perhaps we should. But there's a wider context to consider too. Office for National Statistics data published earlier this year show that in those "real terms" - adjusted for inflation - the value of the average London worker's wage peaked in 2009 and dropped by 4% between 2002 and 2012. Fares up, incomes down - that's the most telling "real terms" story of these times.

The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, accuses Labour of 'economic illiteracy' in promising an energy price freeze if they came into power

Energy secretary claims plan will unleash £40bn extra investment in carbon-friendly electricity generation for UK

The government has responded to a growing investment crisis with the country's offshore wind programme by pulling back on plans to make heavy cuts in subsidies for the power source.

After the German firm RWE last week told of its plans to shelve the 240-turbine Atlantic Array windfarm off Devon, the energy department announced the "strike price" (predetermined price) would be £140 a megawatt hour for 2017-18 and not the planned lesser amount of £135.

Ed Davey, the energy secretary, said the measures unveiled on Wednesday would unleash £40bn of extra investment in carbon-friendly electricity generation.

He said: "This package will deliver record levels of investment in green energy by 2020. Our reforms are succeeding in attracting investors from around the world, so Britain can replace our ageing power station and keep the lights on.

"Investors are queuing up to express their interest in these contracts. This shows that we are providing the certainty they need, our reforms are working and we are delivering ahead of schedule and to plan."

Davey said the UK was now on track to double the amount of electricity generated from renewables, from 15% to 30% by 2020, with an expected 10GW of capacity in place generated by offshore wind.

Financial support for onshore wind farms and large-scale solar schemes that have sometimes caused controversy has been reduced faster than expected under the regime at the Department of Energy and Climate Change as these maturing technologies have become increasingly competitive with fossil fuels.

The cuts were criticised by Labour but government denied that the move against onshore wind power was motivated by a need to please Conservative backbench MPs opposed to farms mainly for the perception that they "blight" the countryside.

On Wednesday, the upbeat message from Davey was endorsed by Dong Energy, a Danish company at the forefront of the offshore wind power "revolution" being pioneered by Britain but opposed by some on cost grounds.

"We welcome the announcements from the government on … the strike prices today," said Brent Cheshire, Dong's UK chairman. "The strong commitment to offshore wind demonstrated by the government today gives us the confidence to move forward with our future pipeline of projects."

Dong claims to have already committed to investing £4bn in the UK's offshore wind market; its installed turbines already power more than 1m homes.

However, Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy at EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, claimed his members would be unhappy.

"With energy bills already rising industry will be disappointed that the reduction in subsidies for mature technologies, such as onshore wind, hasn't translated into a cut in the cost of the overall programme. In particular, the future path for offshore wind strike prices raises question about existing commitments to drive down their costs."

The plans were also criticised by Labour for undermining certainty for investors in renewables so soon after previous cuts to financial support for onshore wind farms and solar panels.

Chris Leslie, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, told BBC Radio 5 Live: "They're just chopping and changing all the time – very bad for stable, long-term, investment."

The prime minister's official spokesman insisted the decision to reduce onshore wind subsidies had been taken for economic rather than political reasons.

"The reason behind it is that … we want a broad energy mix. As new technologies develop over time, lower levels of support are needed. That's why you are seeing the changes we are announcing today," he said.

Asked whether it had anything to do with Tories pushing for fewer onshore wind farms, he said: "Today's announcement is about the structure … for a range of energy targets. It's right those are regularly reviewed. The cost of energy changes as technology develops over time.

"But there is, of course, an issue around energy projects and planning, and the government in the past few months said that we will make sure local communities have a greater say in decisions that they reach in consultation with local planning authorities."

The subsidy changes come after ministers negotiated cuts to the energy company obligation, the programme helping poor households reduce their energy usage, as part of a deal with the big six firms to bring down gas and electricity bills by £50 a year.

Tech workers in San Francisco reportedly take exception to the name, but they may be in the minority. Perhaps, as we have all become more technologically proficient, it's a redundant word anyway

Calling all techies! Oops. I hope you don't mind me calling you that. Some people who are technologically gifted consider the word "techie" an insult, according to the San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday. One interviewee, described as "a tech entrepreneur", said he preferred "hackers", "makers" or "coders". Techie, he thought, designated "an outsider". In San Francisco, the large numbers of tech immigrants has put pressure on housing, which may explain some of the discomfort with the term. But is "techie" really offensive?

Patrick Goss, editor in chief of TechRadar magazine, thinks "it's almost categorically not offensive". Five years ago, he says, "techie" was "pejorative – used to describe someone who was geeky". Perhaps Goss just has a high tolerance for insult though. Can he ask his five colleagues too? He calls out. None finds the word insulting. Ditto the team on T3 magazine next door.

So what has changed? Goss thinks we are all techies now. Techies can be "people who own a smartphone; someone who wants to buy a games console; who is able to deal with Wi-Fi in their household". I am still waiting for a category that I fit into.

On Twitter, I found no one who dislikes the word "techie", though people are queueing up to say it is not offensive at all. Addie at TechCity shrugs. Perhaps it has been rehabilitated like "geek". Steven Ramage, head of Ordinance Survey International, says he's "worked with techies for 20 years and they proudly call themselves techies". Ben Rose, IT manager at a City bank, thinks that if you can do the things that Goss suggests you are not a techie, but simply normal.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of "techy" was in 1969, in a publication called Current Slang. It referred to "a student in a school of technology or math". By 1981 it was applied specifically to students of MIT. Last weekend it was used heartbreakingly by a number of publications in India: "Hyderabad techie commits suicide by jumping from building". Perhaps it is the suffix "ie" that suggests a diminution at just the wrong moment; I don't think "Hyderabad hairdresser" sounds as reductive.

I still have found no one in this small UK sample who feels upset by the word "techie". So I call a company called Call-Tech in Bolton. They service laptops. They could have named themselves Call-Techie.

Nigel picks up the phone. "Call-Tech," he says. He sounds cheerful.

"Hi. Are you techies?"

"Course we are," he says. The business's owner, Mick Warrington, comes on the phone. "Would you think a bricklayer would be offended being called a brickie?" he asks. "That's the term that the tradespeople use. We wouldn't be offended to be classed as techies because that's what we do. Would we prefer to be called computer consultants? Not really."

However, Mick does have a term for customers who display zero technological nous. "SSU," he says straightaway. "Stupid silly user."

Ofwat's chief tells MPs water companies may not be allowed to recover costs from customers if they can't cut down bad debt

Water companies face a block on passing on the cost of unpaid bills to customers unless they do more to collect their bad debts, the industry regulator has warned.

Cathryn Ross, the new chief executive of Ofwat, told MPs the amount customers pay to cover other people's non-payment was too high and that water companies must do more to recover the money.

"The reality at the moment is that it is paid by other customers and the average bill has roughly £15 in it that relates to that bad debt. Companies need to get that down to deliver for customers," she told the environment, food and rural affairs committee.

Asked whether companies did enough to cut bad debts when they could offload the costs to customers, she said: "We are trying to give them that incentive. If we are not satisfied that companies are doing everything they can to get that bad debt down we may not allow them to recover that cost from their customers."

One of Ross's first decisions since taking the helm at Ofwat in October was to turn down Thames Water's attempt to increase bills by £29. Thames said one of the reasons for the proposed 8% increase was a spike in unpaid bills caused by the tough economic climate.

A week after Pope Francis decried income inequality, President Barack Obama spoke on the same issue. Is income inequality a major economic issue?

Thanks to Labour's manoeuvres, the public still see the recovery as either a mirage, or as a recovery only for the rich

On an obscure website, timeanddate.com, is one of those countdown clocks to the next election in May 2015. Somewhere else deep in the bowels in the Treasury is a mental clock compiled by a bright statistician forecasting the point at which real disposable incomes, better known as living standards, start to grow.

The issue for George Osborne, and indeed all UK politicians, is which date comes first, and whether living standards start to grow long enough before the election.

If they do not, the chances of the Conservatives rescuing themselves diminish, or even evaporate. That is a tribute to Labour, for there is now a consensus across Westminster that if Osborne thought voters would gratefully thank him for producing any economic recovery, he was wrong. The recovery is still seen either as a mirage or, in the words of Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman yesterday, as the recovery for the rich.

Indeed, Labour has engineered a strategic masterstroke in turning the political autumn, and Thursday's autumn statement, into a debate about living standards as opposed to a discussion of credit and blame for the economic recovery. If Osborne wanted to put the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, and his Keynesian allies in the stocks, he has so far failed. Polling numbers attributing blame for the recession are largely unchanged over the past three years with 30% blaming Labour and Balls, 30% both parties, and 30% the coalition. The blame is largely distributed along partisan lines. In short, it is not yet a game-changer.

In promising to freeze energy prices, Ed Miliband, in the words of one of Liberal Democrat MP, "has come up with an entirely incredible policy capable of creating total pandemonium across the coalition. We have not yet recovered. Something that will save the average voter £150 a year has been a political goldmine."

If there was ever proof that symbols matter in politics, the energy price freeze provides it. It has left the coalition preparing for the autumn statement fighting on Labour terrain, trying to prove that it is not only competent, but on the side of voters.

In advance of the statement, Osborne has tried to clear the decks of extraneous material so that everyone focuses exclusively on the startling lift in growth forecasts.

Cigarette packets, green taxes and payday loans were addressed last week. Further trash was put out overnight when Osborne announced a further £1bn annual savings over the next three years, in part to fund the crowd-pleasing pledges made by the party leaders at their conferences on free school meals and marriage tax allowance. Cameron let it be known that young people will probably have to work until they are 70 as the nation lives longer.

A row between Michael Gove and Nick Clegg over the implementation of education policy, focused yesterday on £150m needed for school kitchens, also blew up, disrupting plans.

Government sources claim that a few voter-friendly offers to "hardworking Britons" have yet to leak, so expect news on housebuilding, and the abolition of employers' national insurance for people under 21, as part of a wider skills agenda.

But the predominant aim is to make voters focus on the slow, responsible return of growth, and to reassure people that growth will mean higher living standards.

But Osborne faces a complex political task. He needs gently to shepherd public opinion towards the good times, and eschew the loudhailer. The chancellor, at best respected and at worst unloved by the British public, cannot risk hubris.

Political language matters, and no one in British politics deploys it with greater care than Osborne. At the start of the crisis in 2010, he said he had found a port for the British economy in a worldwide storm, then that the economy was healing, then that it had turned the corner, and most recently that Britain was on the road to recovery.

But figures produced by the Office for National Statistics show that real disposable incomes, one of the best measures of living standards, have been broadly flat over the past three years, and in terms of wages there has for middle income groups been a gargantuan £5,000 decline over the past five years.

The Treasury insists that Miliband is wrong to claim that the link between growth and earnings has broken, and say that once growth settles, wages will rise. It is also sure that the recovery is stable. The OECD, in its November 2013 economic outlook, upped its forecast for fourth-quarter GDP growth in the UK to 2.6% in 2013; 2.0% in 2014; and 2.8% in 2015.

The issue, though, is how the proceeds of that growth are distributed, both by markets and by the government. For Osborne it is a race against time.

A link between life expectancy and retirement age is so obvious, it's strange it wasn't introduced before

When David Lloyd George introduced the first state pension, 105 years ago next month, it was worth around 25p a week and could be claimed at the age of 70. At the time, life expectancy was barely 50 and only one person in four made it to pensionable age. But it laid the foundations of a system that slowly began to reflect the real-life experiences of the working population. The value of the pension gradually rose, while pensionable age fell – to 65 for men and, a little later, 60 for women. By 1945, the average woman could expect a few years of retirement and – before too long – even the average man could expect a year or two.

Here the cornerstones of the pension settlement remained, through generations of reforms that promised a whole extra tier of earnings-related top-ups, which never had the chance to mature. By the late 1970s, a mood of welfare expansionism had given way to fiscal retrenchment. And yet, while there was much penny-pinching round the edges, it was not until 1995 that any rise in the pension age was announced, and even then it was only for women and was not fully effective for a quarter of a century. It has taken steep rises in life expectancy to force successive governments to do more. The subsequent record of repeated setbacks shows just how tough that can be.

The coalition's original intention was to bring forward, to 2016 for men and 2020 for women, Labour's planned rise in the pensionable age to 66. This would fit with the timetable for equalisation. That was scotched by EU requirements not to introduce new discriminatory treatment. The next plan was to accelerate equalisation, so that the pension age for both men and women could rise a little more quickly. But this plan meant half a million people would have to wait an extra year to retire, and some women an unanticipated extra two years. Protests forced another rethink, producing a cap on the length of time women would have to wait. Meanwhile, the chancellor started consulting on how to transition the pension age up again, first to 67 and then to 68. The first increase will be phased in from 2026, a whole eight years earlier than originally planned.

So no wonder the chancellor has devised a plan to escape from this conundrum of the incompatibility of politics and long-term pension plans. An automatic linkage between life expectancy and retirement – based on an expected period in retirement of a third of life expectancy – is so obvious it suddenly feels extraordinary that it hasn't been introduced before. At the moment it would imply a pension age of around 68 in about 20 years' time, and around 70 about 50 years from now. That means people starting work today can expect to put in a half-century at the metaphorical coal face. People just turning 50 shouldn't expect a state pension for another 18 years. Even so, all this deals with only one part of the problem.

Earlier this week,official figures showed that while median incomes in working households had fallen a massive 6.4% since 2008, retirees have done pretty nicely, thank you, pocketing a 5.1% increase. Their incomes have been boosted by a lucky mix of circumstance – private pensions more generous than their children will have, a boost to state benefits, and rising employment rates.

The latest changes would mean, the Treasury says, savings of more than £400bn, in reduced pension spending and extra tax from longer working. That will allow the government to make two guarantees: pensions that rise in line with the higher of earnings or inflation, and a decent rate for the new, simplified single-tier pension. But it also means that those who aren't fit enough to work in their late 60s will be marooned on increasingly tight benefits, while poorer groups with below-average life expectancy can expect, unfairly, fewer years on a pension. The reform does nothing to promote equity between today's have-it-all pensioners and their successors, two generations away. It will be acceptable only if these problems are tackled – and if the Treasury can be held to its twin promises.

Never mind loft insulation or electric blankets – there's only one cost-effective way for us to keep warm this winter

Lady Rawlings, who sits in the Lords (always warm) when she's not home in her 17-bedroom stately in Norfolk (probably always cold), recommends electric blankets as a way of staying warm in bed for less. Experts agree that modern, low-wattage blankets with thermostats – using the one you bought at university 20 years ago isn't advised – are a cheap way of staying toasty without having the heating on. But why stop at electric blankets? Much heat is lost through the head, so nightcaps make sound sense, along with bedsocks, even though they are the ultimate passion killer. But probably best of all, as Lady Rawlings may have been too tactful to mention, is the four-poster bed. Thick drapes and the canopied roof were all designed to exclude the faintest zephyr of a draught, and as they are usually quite high, the effect of a cold floor can be ruled out. We look forward with optimism to news of a government energy-saving grant.

Older people have escaped the worst of the chancellor's austerity, but they will soon have to start delaying retirement

Of all the vast cuts that George Osborne has made to social security, the plan to make people wait longer for their pensions is – on the face of it – one of the more reasonable.

After all, benefits for the over-64s consume £111bn out of the £202bn welfare budget, an outright majority, and this is where the real pressure will build in an ageing society. But while the coalition has regarded it as necessary to impose shin-kicking requirements on the unemployed, to force poor young adults to share flats into their 30s and to cap benefits for larger families, payments to the elderly have scarcely been touched. Older Britons have clung on to bus passes and winter fuel payments, and granted exemptions from cuts to housing and council tax rebates.

Together with the new semi-compulsory workplace savings accounts and state payments that rise with earnings, eventual increases in the pension age to 66, 67 and then 68 were part of the new settlement forged by Adair Turner's Pensions Commission in 2005. Some of these increases have since been brought forward.

But Treasury officials have always been especially keen to mimic Sweden, by forging an automatic link between life expectancy and pensionable age. The autumn statement will create this through the institution of a regular Whitehall review, which could imply a pension age of 70 by the 2060s.

That way, if life expectancy at 65 continues to surge – for men, it has recently been rising by two years with each passing decade – the government will not have to go back to parliament and plead with MPs; instead, it will potentially be able to allow the demographers and the accountants to do the job.Great news for the politicians and their civil servants, but will the rest of us be forced to "Work till we drop"? In principle, it should be possible to continue useful careers for longer, seeing as "healthy life expectancy" has tended to rise in parallel with lifespans as a whole. In practice, because of worsening health inequalities between rich and poor, large parts of the population will be legitimately concerned – all the more so because the ever-harsher regime of sickness and unemployment benefits deny 60-somethings too frail to work a decent safety net.

Beyond this, the prospect of indefinitely raising pension ages could prevent future cohorts from following the example of early retiring baby-boomers, in active grand-parenting and sustaining what David Cameron used to call the big society. Delayed pensions might rebalance social security spending, but will do nothing to close the emerging economic faultline between the generations.

After the near-tripling of student fees, this week brought news that the recession had knocked the wages of young workers by a disproportionate 12%, while the incomes of older generations were much better maintained.

Add in a housing market that enriches those who bought homes decades ago while locking out the young, and you might think that the priority would be tipping the scales in favour of Generation Y; telling this cohort it will have to slog for longer pushes the other way.

If that seems perverse, the most-enlightening statistics do not concern pension expenditure or demographics, but voting behaviour. In 2010, only 44% of 18-24 year olds voted, compared to 76% of the over-64s.

George Osborne will use autumn statement to signal new formula linked to life expectancy that could save £500bn over 50 years

Young people currently entering the workforce will have to wait until they are 70 before they can retire under plans to save £500bn over the next 50 years, George Osborne will signal on Thursday.

The chancellor will also use his autumn statement to demand £1bn in additional spending cuts in the hope that voters will focus on Britain's "responsible recovery" – the healthy economic growth prospects for next year, slowly restoring public finances and measures to cut youth unemployment.

In potentially one of the most far-reaching reforms since the introduction of the state pension in 1908, Osborne will say the pension age for men and women will rise to 70 by the 2060s under a new formula linked to average life expectancy. This means that people born in the 1990s, who are now entering the workforce, will have to work until at least the Biblical life expectancy of three score and ten.

Osborne's statement to the Commons on Thursday will attempt to show that the government is making long-term plans as the economy recovers. David Cameron highlighted this approach when he told the BBC in Chengdu, on the final day of his trip to China: "We have been working to a long-term plan and what you are going to see in this autumn statement is the next steps in that long-term plan, a long-term plan to turn the country around, to get us out of our difficulties with debt and deficit and to secure jobs and recovery for all our people – a recovery for all."

Cameron and Osborne were also given a boost ahead of his half-yearly update on the state of the economy when the ratings agency Standard & Poor's said it was considering lifting the threat to Britain's AAA credit rating as a result of the economy's recent strong growth.

The government, which has already announced that the state pension age will rise to 66 by 2020 and to 67 by 2028, will accept the findings of a review that recommends that people should spend a third of their adult lives in retirement. A review by the Department of Work and Pensions, to be started in the next parliament and which will report every five years, will decide on future retirement ages based on ONS life expectancy figures.

The changes mean that the retirement age – based on current life expectancy projections – would reach 68 by the mid-2030s and is expected to reach 70 around three decades later. The changes mean that the immediate post-baby boomer generation – born from the mid-1960s onwards – will see a noticeable increase in the age at which they retired compared to their parents.

The chancellor is expected to stress that the latest changes will not have any impact on people currently in their 40s and above. Nobody over the age of 50 will have a retirement age of 68 or more.

The Treasury also announced that it is demanding a further £1bn annual spending cuts over the next three years, including this financial year. In practice departmental underspends this year mean the bulk of the painful extra cuts will have to be found in the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. In line with precedent, the aid, defence, schools, security services and health budgets will be protected from the extra cuts.

But tensions within departments over spending were highlighted when Michael Gove's education department claimed it was being forced to impose cuts to fund £150m to build new kitchens to meet the Liberal Democrat promise to fund free school meals for all six and seven year-olds. The Department for Education said Clegg's plan "had been drawn up on the back of a fag packet", and insisted it did not have the money in its maintenance budget to fund the plan. In response, the Lib Dems accused the education department of lying about its finances.

Both sides will welcome a skills and youth unemployment package, including the removal of national insurance on under 21 year olds, and the autumn statement will also resolve the drawn out battle over green levies, leading to an averge £50 cut in energy bills. Osborne will also try to protect himself from the charge that he is spokesman for business by publishing forecasts showing that cuts in corporation tax over 20 years will increase the long-term level of GDP by between 0.6 % and 0.7%.

Sterling rose to its highest level in five years on expectations that Osborne will use the statement to raise his growth forecasts – the first time he has been able to do so since 2010. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility will say that growth this year will be 1.5% – up from the 0.6% estimate in the March Budget – while the forecast for 2014 will be lifted from 1.8% to 2.5%.

S&P – the only one of the three major agencies not to have stripped the UK of its coveted AAA status – said it had been surprised at the pick-up in activity during 2013 – a year that began with fears of a triple-dip recession. "As others, we have been surprised on the upside on the growth performance so far this year on the UK" said Moritz Kraemer, S&P's head of sovereign ratings for Europe."

Stronger than expected growth will have a knock-on effect on public finances, with net borrowing expected to be around £15bn lower than predicted in 2014-15. Osborne will also argue that modelling by the Treasury shows that over time the gains to the economy from higher growth will outweigh the cost of tax cuts. The Treasury estimates the average household will be £500 better off as a result of the move.

Got a consumer affairs, property or work issue you just can't crack? Put your problem to our panel of experts

Consumer rights and work

Guardian Money
Consumer champions
Ripped-off? Poorly served? Our experts, Miles Brignall and Rebecca Smithers, will help you fight for your consumer rights. Email your questions to consumer.champions@ theguardian.com
--------------------

Guardian Money
Dear Jeremy
Agony uncle Jeremy Bullmore offers advice on a range of workplace issues. Email your questions to dear.jeremy@
theguardian.com Please note he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally
--------------------

Observer Cash
Your problems
Every week, Anna Tims writes your consumer wrongs. Email your questions to your.problems@observer.co.uk
--------------------

Homebuying and mortgages

theguardian.com/money
Ask the expert: property
Muddled about mortgages? Concerned about conveyancing? Put your homebuying and borrowing worries to Virginia Wallis. Email your questions to virginia.wallis.freelance@
theguardian.com
--------------------

He didn't contribute towards the deposit or to any of the mortgage payments, but his name remains on the deeds

Q I have a mortgage on a flat I bought in 2003 in England with my then partner. Unfortunately he left me and moved away three weeks after moving into our flat. He did not contribute towards the deposit or to any of the mortgage payments. In 2008 my new partner and I moved to Edinburgh where we live with our son. We have another baby on the way. My flat has been rented out but is currently unoccupied. We have tried various ways to get my ex's name off the mortgage, and my ex has agreed to this, but my lender has refused. I do not meet their affordability criteria, despite having paid the mortgage by myself for many years.

My new partner has a flexible mortgage with the same lender as me, and sufficient credit to pay off my mortgage. He has a good job as a finance director and is financially secure.

We had hoped that by him using his flexible mortgage to pay off mine, we would be able to transfer the mortgage into my sole name and also save several hundreds of pounds in repayments each month, as his interest rate is much lower than mine. Unfortunately, his application was turned down and they have not given us a reason for this.

As it stands we are in a desperate position, as the higher monthly payments are financially crippling, particularly with no tenant in the property. My partner is now effectively paying the mortgage on my flat, since I work part time and will be on maternity leave from November.

We cannot understand why our lender feels it is a better option to maintain the status quo, and feel it is deeply unfair. If nothing changes we will possibly be driven to default on my mortgage and I will lose any financial security which I worked so hard to keep when my ex walked out 10 years ago. EF

A I am a little confused. If your partner has sufficient credit on his flexible mortgage to be able to pay off the mortgage on your flat, he wouldn't have had to make an application to his lender to spend the money. So I suspect he applied for an increase in his mortgage loan to be able to raise the cash to clear your mortgage. If he wants to know why his application was refused, he can ask. Although it is unlikely that the lender will give precise reasons why he was turned down, he should at least be told the broad reasons, which could be affordability, being let down by a credit score, or the result of information supplied by a credit reference agency. It could well be that your lender doesn't offer mortgages for buy-to-let, which is essentially what he was applying for.

Even if your partner had got the loan he wanted, by paying off your mortgage he would have made you mortgage free; it wouldn't have meant that the mortgage would be in your sole name. Rather, he would have had one mortgage in his name covering both the home you live in and the flat you own in England.

If you don't want to rely on your partner paying your mortgage and your flat remains without a paying tenant, the most obvious solution would be to sell it and pay off the mortgage with the sale proceeds. If you don't want to sell, or can't, another option would be to see if you can switch your mortgage to a different lender offering better terms than your current one.

When considering buy-to-let mortgages, which is what you would need, many lenders take into account potential rental income rather than earned income, so the fact you work part time shouldn't make a difference.

However, to be able to switch to a buy-to-let lender the mortgage would have to be no more than 75% of the value of the flat and the rental income would have to cover the mortgage repayments by 125%.

Problems at work? Need advice? Our agony uncle – and readers – have the answer

• Need help? Email Jeremy at dear.jeremy@theguardian.com outlining your dilemma

My business has failed and I don't know what to do next

My wife and I recently decided to wind up a small ceramics business we had bought and run for five years. Despite our best efforts we simply could not make it work. The failure of what should have been a life-defining project has dealt a serious blow to our confidence and finances, and means I should probably return to a structured environment with reasonable pay.

I am something of a hybrid, being a creative, entrepreneurial and community-minded individual. Partly as a result of this I am struggling to find the direction in which to focus my efforts.

I am 49 and have sought help from various quarters, including networking, paying a career coach and making contact with recruitment companies. My instincts tell me to stick with what I know – making and selling high-end consumer goods – and to try to join a team in this area.

However, when I list my interests, without any preconceived ideas, there is a wide range including education, the built environment, design and current affairs.

My formative work experience was helping to create, grow and run a medium-size family business. What feels like an unstructured career also includes periods working for a management consultancy, French toy manufacturer and studying/living in Paris. By accident, I recently discovered a local charity and am also considering whether it may have a part-time role for me to help raise its profile.

Jeremy says

You describe yourself as something of a hybrid – and from what you write, that seems an understatement. I may be reading too much into this, but I found your last sentence particularly revealing. By chance, you hear about a local charity – and your immediate reaction is to wonder whether there might be a part-time role for you there. I find myself wondering if you've been reacting in a similar fashion for much of your working life. Because you never seem to have had a single, driving interest or ambition and because you're clearly competent in lots of different areas, you always seem to respond to random opportunities with an almost thoughtless optimism.

But none of them, it seems, has given you long-term satisfaction. If, as you believe, your strength lies in making and selling high-end consumer goods, it seems odd to get distracted by a local charity – when you don't appear to know whether this charity has a need for such a function.

I suspect the time has come for you to make an eyes-wide-open analysis of your strengths and weaknesses. If you encourage your wife to be absolutely honest, she could be hugely helpful here – however painful the process might be. My guess, based on nothing but your letter, is that while you like the idea of running your own show, you lack the steely determination and sense of realism to make a lasting go of things. I think you're a bit of a romantic, hoping and believing that creative ideas will sooner or later come good.

So I'm greatly encouraged that you should be thinking of a more structured way of life, joining an existing team. Your most valuable role, I believe, will be creative rather than executive. Not all your ideas will be practical. You need to work with a strong and disciplined CEO who backs the good ones and rejects the others.

Having been your own boss you may find this tough to accept, but I'm sure that your ambition to be a valued member of a successful team is where you should be directing all your energy.

Readers say

• Your skill set – being both business and community minded – makes me suggest you look at the non-profit sector. Charities increasingly need to turn to income generation and social enterprises to provide paid-for products and services, yet they can lack business attitude and know-how.

Talk to CEOs or board members of charities near you that are solving issues you feel passionate about – you might find a good fit as a social entrepreneur. You might be able to make a real difference to your community just by bringing your business mindset to services and products they have experience with on the ground. nturner30

I'm homesick but not sure how to find a job back in the UK

I am working in a project management role for an IT department in Switzerland. Initially, it was a fixed-term temporary contract, but when it was converted to permanent earlier this year it made me realise I was desperately homesick and wanted to come back.

I am single, in my late 40s, I don't love my job and the environment here is challenging, both in and out of work. This has been made worse after a recent run-in with a more senior colleague, with whom I previously had a good working relationship.

I don't know whether to take a lower-paid, lower-status job just to get back to the UK; come back without a job and hope a contract will come up; or hang on until an appealing permanent role comes up, risking becoming even more unhappy – and older – here.

If I move for just any job I'll be 50 before I start trying to get into another career, and I don't know if that's too late. I don't have a particular specialism – or solid assets – behind me.

Jeremy says

My strong instinct is that you're not going to sort out the rest of your life while brooding and feeling homesick, and becoming less and less decisive.

I think you should come back to the UK as soon as you practically can. Don't be too fussy about the first job you take: it doesn't have to be permanent and it doesn't have to be a blot on your CV either. Just give yourself a little time to enjoy your return and think more positively about what to do next.

You talk about embarking on another career. I'm not sure whether you plan to stay in IT or not. But as you know better than I do, IT covers a huge range of tasks and sectors and you should explore all those on offer before deciding to change course completely.

The main thing is to regain your sense of optimism. I'd be pretty sure that, once you're back and away from a work environment you find oppressive, you'll find that your future looks a great dealt more appealing.

Readers say

• You seem to be undergoing a mid-life crisis: understandable given your job dissatisfaction. But to leave a steady job for such uncertainty does nothing to take the years off and will only make your decision look weak to potential new employers. "Homesickness" may not read like the kind of quality recruiters appreciate. Far better to address two things first : what else can make you feel like embarking on new horizons at your age (after all, you are the new 39), and how can you leave Switzerland for a new job rather than in hope of one. Houseproud

• Don't let go of one branch before grabbing the next one. At least you are getting paid in a hard currency. And the trains run on time. Coolhandluke77

For Jeremy's and readers' advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@theguardian.com. Please note that Jeremy is unable to answer questions of a legal or contractual nature or to reply personally.

Renewing a passport or driving licence can entail hefty fees when your Google search leads to a paid-for link

My partner did a Google search for "replacement drivers licence" and clicked the top link. He paid £80 and ordered his licence.

The following morning I received a confirmation email and discovered that, instead of the DVLA, he had used a website called drivinglicence.uk.com. This company offers to check the paperwork prior to sending the application off – at a cost of £80. It is blatantly set up to mislead people into thinking they have bought one thing only to deliver something completely different – and at vastly inflated cost. It preys on those who are vulnerable, less computer savvy, or who don't check all the terms and conditions. AC, Fareham, Hampshire

I fell for one of the third-party websites charging fees for "passport renewal" when, in fact, it was a form printing service. I Googled "renew child passport" and found a link directly to the UK Passport Online Application Service's child passport renewal page. I was charged £40, which I presumed was the passport fee. However, when I went to the company's homepage there were warnings dissociating it from the official passport site. These were not on the page I had been directed to by Google. So I was charged £40 to have my information printed on a form and posted to me. RB, Sheffield

These websites, and others like them, appear to set out to mislead people into thinking they are official since no-one in their right mind would pay £40 to have a passport application checked when the Post Office will do it for £8.75. However, provided that the websites make it clear that they are not affiliated with the government and what services you are paying for, they are not illegal. drivinglicence.uk.com does do this on its homepage, but it's evidently relying on the fact that hurried customers, fooled by the words "driving licence application" at the top of the page, will click straight on the two prominent "apply now" buttons without reading the blurb.

UK Passport Online Application Service is more worrying. Although the first paragraph on its homepage points out that it is not affiliated with the Home Office, there is, as you say, no mention of this on the renewal page.

When I contact both companies, only Jamie Wyatt of Caveat Viator which runs drivinglicence.uk.com (the name, appropriately enough, is Latin for "traveller beware") replies, but he goes to ground when I ask how he justifies the £80 fee. UK Passports Online never gets back to me. Both charge £1.53 a minute for calls and in July the premium-rate regulator PhonePayPlus imposed new rules, forcing such companies to be more transparent about who they are and the services they offer. Hence the disclaimers.

"The tough new conditions will help protect the 82% of people who look for phone numbers online by stamping out sharp practice," says Paul Whiteing, chief executive at PhonepayPlus. Except they continue to be as sharp as ever because so many of us fail to read the small – or even large – print before rushing in. Not only can that cost us, but it means unscrupulous firms possess vital personal data. So, traveller beware indeed. Don't ever enter payment details until you can be sure who you are dealing with and don't commit to a website just because it comes first in the Google results.

If you need help email Anna Tims at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Include an address and phone number.

There was a 90p shortfall, but FCC is threatening me with court

First Capital Connect is threatening me with court over a ticket I bought from one of its staff. I was travelling to St Albans from Kentish Town in London, and went to the ticket office and asked for a young person's return. On the train, a ticket inspector informed me that my £5.90 ticket was invalid.

Apparently, when buying my ticket I had received a "zonal" London ticket and not the £6.80 return to St Albans I'd asked for. I explained that I had gone to the man at the office, not a ticket machine, and that I trusted he had given me the correct ticket.

This cut no ice with the inspector and he asked me to pay for the new ticket on top of a fine.

The matter is now going to court. There is no self-service ticket machine at Kentish Town and so, while I may be guilty of carelessness, the mistake lies with the member of staff. Originally, I was willing to let the whole incident slide as an accident on their behalf. However, it is clear they feel they can push you about, as the risks to themselves are minimal, whereas I am facing a hefty fine and, more importantly, a criminal record.

First Capital Connect could not have been less co-operative and the whole experience has made me disillusioned with the train system, and unfairly painted me as a criminal when I have done nothing but follow the rules. PO, London

This is a shocking story and since writing to us, you have attended the first court hearing, which was adjourned while First Capital Connect decided whether to pursue the case.

The inspector would have known your ticket had come from one of the ticket offices but still chose to fine you. Rail companies that pursue customers who bought tickets in good faith are a disgrace, particularly when they threaten customers with a criminal record with all the consequences that entails. In this case it is over a mere 90p. Small wonder you are thoroughly disillusioned with the train system.

Happily, when we raised the case with First Capital Connect it moved fast and has now withdrawn the court action. To say sorry, it is sending you a pair of first class train tickets for a journey of your choice. You are understandably extremely relieved.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number

Buying these Fairtrade cards will help support dependants of the garment workers hit by the tragedy

If you haven't got your Christmas cards yet, it's not too late to buy some charity cards that will make a real difference – and where part of the purchase price will go towards helping victims of the Rana Plaza garment factory disaster in Bangladesh.

For several years now, Guardian Money has promoted cards made by the Bangladesh-based charity Sreepur, which promises that every penny spent on its cards will go towards helping to support its Sreepur Village project.

From its base 40 miles north of the capital Dhaka, where it already supports 500 abandoned children and women, Sreepur has now stepped in to help victims of April's Rana Plaza disaster, in which more than 1,100 people died.

Many of the victims were not on the poorly maintained official staff lists, and as a result their dependants have been denied any compensation. Sreepur is paying for some victims' children to be schooled, and is helping with the fostering of others. It plans to assist 250 people over the coming months – mostly children – partly funded by the sales of Christmas cards made by the community.

Started 28 years ago by former British Airways flight attendant Pat Kerr, the charity has long helped to fund itself from the sale of the cards.

At the heart of the project is the charity's own paper-making facility. The community's women have been trained to produce the paper from locally grown jute and the high-quality product, which has Fairtrade status, is dyed in vibrant colours.

Once dried in the sun, the cards are worked on by women from the local community, who decorate them in return for a living wage – money that makes a huge difference to their lives.

It is symbolic that the village makes Christmas cards, as 25 December is when the children celebrate their collective birthday. Most do not know their true date of birth, as they were often abandoned by parents or other family who could no longer afford to feed them. Several of those taken in by the charity as children now help run it.

British Airways, a long-term corporate supporter, flies the cards to the UK for free via its Bangladesh cargo operation. Volunteers in the UK collect them from the airport and distribute them here. This ensures 100% of the money spent on the cards goes directly to Sreepur.

The Sreepur cards are in stark contrast to other cards being sold on the high street for good causes, which the Charities Advisory Trust warned earlier this week are still giving as little as 6%-7% to the charity concerned.

A pack of 16 cards costs £14.50, which includes UK postage and packing. For more information and to buy the cards go to sreepurcards.org.

As a publishing editor the opportunities in front of me seem to diminish daily. What on earth can I do next?

Twice a week we publish the problems that will feature in a forthcoming Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Money supplement so that readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy's own insights. Here is the latest dilemma – what are your thoughts?

I am 37 years old and have painted my career into a corner. I have worked as an editor of books, trade magazines and newspapers since I left university with a first class BA and MA in English. But publishing is dead, especially here in Ireland where the market is small and there are few jobs to be found – only junior roles that pay peanuts, and internships.

In my current job there is no opportunity for advancement. We took a 15% pay cut last year, which means I am now earning less than when I started in this position aged 31. I have been looking to leave for more than a year-and-a-half, but there is nowhere to go.

I have taken an evening class and got certified in PR and event management (I got first class honours), but I don't have the experience in that field and there is a lot of competition. I don't even know if my age is against me – am I too old for PR?

I feel my career is dead. I work in a dying industry and although I have retrained I don't have the experience to get a decent job in PR (I don't want to go back to the bottom of the ladder at my age). I had so much academic promise when I was young and feel I have wasted my talents.

So, to sum up, I don't know what to do: I retrained; I have tried doing volunteer work; and I've tried making the best of publishing, even retraining in web editing in the publications I work on. But I'm stuck and can't move on or up.

Do you need advice on a work issue? For Jeremy's and readers' help, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@theguardian.com. Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally.

Investigation follows complaints from leasehold property owners of overcharging and poor service by managing agents

The Office of Fair Trading is to investigate the property management industry following complaints from flat-owners about over-charging and poor quality services by some providers.

For years owners of leasehold properties such as flats and retirement homes have complained that management firms have been overcharging to manage the properties they live in. These firms typically maintain, clean and carrying out building repairs in return for an annual service charge.

The OFT said it was now looking into this area, and wants to hear from interested parties who can shed some light on why the management of leasehold homes in England and Wales isn't working well for consumers.

It announced the study days before a separate OFT investigation into the activities of the UK's biggest property managers is due to report.

Property management companies often provide the services themselves or through employed contractors, but the system has been wide open to be abuse by unscrupulous companies.

One of the firms accused of overcharging leaseholders for a ride in the past, Peverel, went into administration in 2011, only to be later bought by private equity for £62m.

In 2011 the Guardian featured the case Frank Gadd who was paying huge service charges out of his pension to Peverel. The service charge hit £4,400 a year for a run of four maisonettes with no common areas. After taking the agents to a tribunal, the charge fell to £200.

An existing OFT investigation into suspected breaches of competition law in relation to the supply and installation of entry systems and alleged collusive tendering, is due to report on Friday.

Cavendish Elithorn, OFT executive director, said: "This market is significant, with as many as five million people living in leasehold properties. Costs can be very substantial and we have been provided with a number of examples showing significant financial impact on individual residents and the difficulty in exerting control over the process.

"However, before formally launching our study we want to hear from key players and interested parties in this sector, as well as from the residents themselves, so we get a clear idea of the areas on which we should be focusing."

The investigation was immediately welcomed by Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which has long campaigned for better leaseholder rights.

"It is excellent that the OFT has announced this investigation – at last, dozy officialdom is waking up to the abuses in leasehold, ranging from small-scale Rackmans to huge corporate players. The amounts of money involved are staggering," said spokesman, Sebastian O'Kelly.

The inquiry was also welcomed by Peter Bottomley, the MP for Woking, and another campaigner on the issue.

"I hope this important study will expose and help to end a number of the unacceptable practices in the sector. Leaseholders and MPs will be pleased that the OFT has announced this vital wide-reaching market study into residential property management services.

"Our first aim was to end abuse in the retirement sector. It is better that it will now be covering the whole of the leasehold sector."

The OFT intends to commence the market study in early 2014.