Credit References Agencies sell on our personal data (Credit Scoring) to financial institutions such as Banks, Mortgage Lenders and Credit Card Companies, These Credit Reference Agencies also sell to us services to monitor and improve our credit scores. A conflict of interest therefore exists as it is in the Credit Reference Agencies interest to provide accurate "negative" information to the financial institutions/commercial sector whilst in the same breath providing accurate "positive" information to members of the general public. Credit Reference Agencies actively encourage the financial institutions to share / pass on the very same negative information that they then ask members of the public to take action / defend against. In computer terms this would be the same as an network security company searching out and encouraging the creation of new viruses to be introduce to the internet, whilst selling anti virus software to protect us from those very same viruses. The net result is that a huge number of people here in the UK are unable to access conventional lending facilities (High Street Mortgages are one example) and are forced to take more expensive forms of credit. Mortgages are a good example of this, a late payment on a mortgage resulted in a less favorable credit score when applying for a new mortgage, this increased the expected monthly payments which where prohibitive and forced my family into rented accommodation (landlords do not submit tenant information to credit reference agencies) and so no further monthly payment history can exist, forcing the individual to take more expensive financial offerings placing more strain on his/her budget.

East Coast Trains is contributing money back to the UK economy and is the best example of why a state owned public service is best kept public. With a possible change of Government so soon after the selling of this franchise, it's sale should be delayed to allow a (possible) Labour Government keep the company state owned

Using these solar conductors will be a benefit to raising the proportion of renewable eletricity sales under the Utilities Act of 2000 and it is only a matter of time until these windows get created commercially - no doubt at a great price. The future revenue created by these solar-windows will far exceed it's expenditure, not to mention the benefit of jobs created in the short-term. With the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff in 2010 people will be able to buy and install these themselves and the UK government will lose out on selling vast amounts of energy back to the grids. As a citizen I would love to harness the energy myself and live off-grid but this petition is not for me, it is for the future of the UK's energy sector and the general land itself. With certain moves in place to try and start mass shale gas "fracking" I am genuinely afraid of the effects this will have to our water supplies, energy prices and the general geography of our country. As the environment minister you are obliged to ease the minds of those of us who are closely watching how you are ensuring the UK are at the forefront of sustainable development and that you actually care about climate change.

This petition is presented for the purpose of creating a better framework of Interest rates and Taxes, as applied in an inflationary environment to High Street Savers. In this document the word 'real' is used to indicate that Inflation has been taken into account. Present Situation In the past 80 years there has been only one instance of an annual RPI deflation. That was 2009. A Saver is rarely rewarded with a positive real gain under the present methods of setting interest rates and income taxation. Each year the Saver pays income tax and loses a capital value related to Inflation. In Good Years, Savers are provided with a real gain, but real Income Tax is at a high rate, usually between 50 and 100%. Sometimes, Savers pay 100% real Income Tax and a real Capital Tax as well. In Bad Years, Savers pay real Capital Tax, together with a real Ex-Inflation Tax (excess of inflation over interest) . The last 12 years have been 'bad' years, except for 2009. Wealth Transfer For about the past 12 years Savers have been losing real Capital Value from their Savings due to inflation. These losses are not 'lost for all time and to all', but they are losses of capital value from Savers. This capital value is transferred to Debtors, as capital gain or other forms of value transfer. Essentially, due to the action of inflation Savers find their capital value reduced, while Debtors find their debts reduced. The conditions for such a Transfer is caused by devaluation of the GB Pound; recognised by; A) Statutory rate Inflation rate specified to Bank of England as 'monthly' & 'medium term' target, B) Actual Inflation experienced in the UK while the Bank of England attempts to hold Inflation to the Target. No Capital Transfer Tax nor Capital Gains tax is paid on such Transfers. No restitution is paid to Savers for these losses The ONS has no collected data by which to estimate the total value of transfers of such monies. As a first estimate of total UK Saver's losses caused by the current system of Tax&Inflation we can use annual devaluation of the UK Savers total Capital. BoE data suggest that UK Savers have about £1200x10^9 in Term Deposits, and about £800x10^9 in Sight Deposits. A total of some £2000x10^9. This capital loses value at the rate of devaluation/inflation. Say an annual loss of value of £20x10^9 for each 1% of Inflation. To prevent this loss it is suggested that Inflation should be reduced to Zero, or, that Savers should be reimbursed for losses caused by Inflation. It should be noted that currently most Saver accounts are held by Bank, Building Society, and other organisations, who as a matter of course make the calculations for, Interest paid, and Tax deducted. It appears more logical, therefore, to continue with this system, but make sufficient changes to provide a Saver with a real positive reward, after Tax. Proposal I Rarely is the interest paid to Savers, positive after tax and inflation. We suggest that legislation be enacted to provide a legal minimum savings interest rate. Higher rates will be set by 'market forces' It is proposed that there be a legal minimum rate of 1% above RPI Inflation. Proposal II The volume of Tax raised on Savings Interest is currently excessive because no account is taken of Inflation. A fair income tax on Savings Interest might be based on real income. It is proposed that an Index-link to both Savings' Capital Value & Interest, is used for Income Tax purposes. Proposal III An Income tax based on real income would yield a much smaller volume of tax. Were this tax reduced to zero rate, there would be no cost of collection. It is proposed that Savings Interest is declared tax-free. Proposal IV Were no change to be made to the Taxation System as applied to Saving Interest, it would be appropriate to modify the proposed Legal minimum interest rate for Savings, to allow for this taxation disadvantage. It is proposed that in such conditions the Legal Minimum rate of Savings Interest shall be 125% of the rate proposed above. This will over compensate those who do not pay income tax, and will be an insufficient adjustment of those who pay income tax at the 40 and 45% rates. For the purposes of this Petition we retain a simple flat rate tax concept, set at 20% or 1/5. It is proposed that the minimum rate of Savings Interest to be 5/4 x (RPI +1)%. Proposal V So that the lack of 'fairness' is removed, we have made the proposals above. Such a situation might return. We propose that a Treasury position of 'Savings Champion' shall be created by primary legislation. The specific duty of the Savings Champion will be to keep watch on above changes ( when they have been instituted by legislation) and report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they are not, or appear not to be, adhered to.

Lloyds is an old english bank that is changing for the worse and has been owned by the english tax payer yet continued to not realise or accept that it cannot act in non-common sense, off-hand, aloof, over complicated and unreasonable manner when onteracting or communicating with its owners and customers. I have a very small company with a commercial account with lloyds and over a year ago they suspended the functioning of my visa debit card. They admitted it was in error. The forced £100 into my account without my knowledge. I refused this as compensation. They then offered £300 as final settlement. I refused this as it was not enough. I did not have my card for 9 days. I could not buy online. I had to wait for a new card to be sent ans them further for a pin code. When i said £300 is not enough to cover the loss of earnings, stress and compensation for the time to work on their error they sent a letter saying they would not deal with me anymore and the letter has bold capitals at the top saying 'final decision'. The time taken to deal with their error has been hundreds of hours. I have charged for this and invoiced them at there head branch in london. There has been no attempt at any level by lloyds to be approachable and embracing. There has been every attempt by lloyds to be detached, blocking and aloof. I then contacted the uk's financial ombudsman. After 3 or so months i got to a legal person under their adjudication system. I then had health issues and decided to pause the pursuit of compensation for my limited company and also to pursue the well overdue systemic change needed within lloyds, both for commercial accounts and also personal accounts. Lloyds also have my address wrong. This is how blinkered and basic the errors are. Behind every amazing sme business/startup is a person called the m.D, or ceo. Their lives,, and those of their family and friends are directly affected by the appalling behaviour of the uk's banking systems. Its time for deep systemic change within lloyds so great britains businesses can flourish, without being kicked in the face by the organisations that need to help them. I try so hard to strip emotion from this an stick to facts. However, this is near impossible as it is an emotive subject. And so it should be, we are talking about peoples lives and livelihoods. I am not bringing problems without solutions. This does not have to be convoluted, difficult and over-engineered. It is time to be compensated for all the trauma, frustration, distress, loss of business face, loss of earnings, loss of address (to lloyds), the many 100's of hours of deep analytic work, phone calls, letters, emails and recording all these. If you have the same story as me, and maybe you are simply exhausted from the fight, id like to hear from you however it has to be only facts and they have to be substantiated by you with a citation/date time stamps. I cannot do all this on my own but maybe collectivley we can create a register of actions, dates and times with how it cobbled your business and you. After the ppi scandals we now have new lloyds authorised and promoted malpractises coming out. This may be the right time to make a change for the better for everyone and to save a major long standing british institution. Please be aware this petition is first and foremost a petiton for change in culture, mission and dialogue and not a petition to get compensated. If that comes then all well and good but that may be a side-effect of the main petition. We need the uk's financial ombudsman onboard as well. It looks as though they are going through a rigourous and uneasy process of change but unlike lloyds, they are open, transparent, non aloof and reaching out for collaboration. This, and i cannot stress this enough, is an amazing surprising and wonderful discovery. I will be making a website where customers of lloyds can start entering dates, times, action, nonaction and proven affects. It cannot be a forum or hangout yet. We have to deal with only fact Eg: 1. Jan 2013-lloyds cancelled my business card with no notice 2. They admitted liablity verbally and by snailmail 3. They deposited money into my account with no notice and no reference number 4. They offered more money as compensation by snail mail letter 5. When i declined that amount they sent a snailmail letter saying go away and marked it 'final decision' Professionals and time-served heavyweights with a desire to change lloyds please join. We have elliott v lloyds tsb bank plc & anor [2012] ew misc 7 (cc) Citation: http://www.Scl.Org/site.Aspx?I=ed26547 Maybe start by writing a brief story Then start writing down facts Then order them chronologically Stay tenacious, focussed and humble and we can stop these crazy lloyds actions. £10 per day for being a few pounds overdrawn=bonkers

For many reasons. to house Britain's 1,500,000 homeless. to revitalise the building industry and its ancilliary suppliers. to return Britain to being a community in charge of its own destiny. We have the skills we have the labour and there's plenty of money around at very low rates of interest.

Students cannot afford tuition fees. It's not ok for them to have to pay huge debts when they start to earn a living wage. It is not ok for graduates to have to stay living at home for many years after graduating because they cannot afford to rent or buy.

The vast majority of people are appalled by the massive gap between the very richest and the very poorest in society; a gap that over the past two or three decades has been ever widening. Most people are particularly dismayed at the growing need for those in work to need the crutch of benefits to bring their income up to a living wage. An effective way of combating this is to outlaw excess at the top and to obligate fairer wages at the bottom. A relative earnings limit which puts a statutory maximum multiplier on the earnings of the highest paid employee v the lowest, should go some way to curbing this inequality. For example, if that maximum multiplier were x50 (which itself is massive), then if a CEO wished to be paid earnings (including bonuses) of £1,000,000 per year, then the lowest paid employee must earn the equivalent of £20,000 full-time salary. This petition doesn't in itself suggest what that maximum multiplier should be but simply that there should be some degree of relativity. We also appreciate that the policy and any legislation needs to be drafted with considerable care, to ensure that all earnings are included (including bonuses, pensions and share options) and to ensure that lowest wages aren't disguised by outsourcing the lowest paid jobs to other bodies. However fear of loopholes and abuse should not stop the brightest politicians and economists from devising a workable and legally binding way of promoting fairness through a relative earnings limit. We do not see such a limit applied to personal investors in and entrepreneurs and creators of new ventures - only to employees within organisations.

It will put money in the Treasury's coffers as well as ending a deep unfairness

because i live under one roof with 18 other flats, 62 under 3 roofs and we all get a bill for rain running of the roof and that really gets my back up. it needs to change now !

Parents are often paying this tax for ten years; during which children can need three pairs of shoes a year. This is an unreasonable burden on household budgets already under strain.

It’s important because if it had not been for our War veterans, none of us would be here today. People should support my petition because we should respect our elderly people. And we should fight on their behalf. I started my petition because Britain's elderly people have been forgotten. If enough people sign, Parliament will be forced to discuss the issue and put it on the media spotlight.