That has been despite the widespread introduction of a balance transfer fee of 2 per cent.Third, a number of regulatory bodies have been looking at some of the practices of the lending industry – payment protection insurance (PPI) on loans, for example, and penalty fees for late payment – and this will probably force banks to levy lower charges in the future.In this environment, annual fees are likely to emerge as a way for lenders to claw back some money, PwC forecasts.”Credit card providers are coming under increasing pressure from competition and mounting regulatory scrutiny,” said Richard Thompson, a PwC partner and author of the report.”[With the regulatory inquiries], some aspects appear to be based on the assumption of excess profitability, but there’s a danger [they're] all targeting the same profit pool.”As a result, he said, there would be a “waterbed effect”, where the costs would be reallocated with an annual fee.Last month, the MBNA credit card company introduced annual card fees for a number of its customers.PwC’s “Precious Plastic 2005″ report accurately predicted the squeeze on 0 per cent balance transfer deals.Mortgages: Brokers berated over self-certified loansNearly half of mortgage brokers have failed to show that they have properly assessed whether consumers can afford a self-certified mortgage, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has found.These loans are usually taken out by borrowers who are self-employed or unable to show a steady stream of income. The reintroduction of the fee, largely abandoned in the 1990s as the credit card market became fiercely competitive, would form part of a fightback by banks and card lenders hit by a costly “treble whammy”.
First, bad debts are rising as consumers overstretch themselves and default on what they owe; bankruptcies and individual voluntary arrangements are on the up.Second, “rate tart” customers, who hop from one cheap credit card to the next, continue to cost the industry money.It is estimated, PwC reports, that consumers who switch their outstanding credit balances between 0 per cent card deals to avoid paying any interest have hit the sector’s pockets to the tune of some £600m this year. We cannot return documents, give personal replies or guarantee to answer letters We accept no legal responsibility for advice given.. Consumers should brace themselves for the return of annual credit card fees, according to the “Precious Plastic 2006″ report from accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). An update – no more – should come in the pre-Budget report on Monday 5 December.If you need help from our consumer champion, write to Sindie at The Independent on Sunday, Independent House, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS or email sindie independent.co.uk. First, there’s the cost that the Government is likely to impose on companies that want to convert to the new Reit structure.

Second, the amount that Reits will be able to borrow for investment has yet to be decided.It was stated in the Budget that the Treasury aimed to legislate for Reits in 2006 – and a spokesman says this “is still the current position”. There was a mention in the 2004 Budget and this year’s too, but since then I’ve heard nothing about when they will be launched. Can you help with any information, or am I wasting my time?OT, LiverpoolA: Reits remain a work in progress. The investment industry is still labouring on details for their structure and tax relief.For the uninitiated, a Reit is a property fund that will give individuals the chance to invest in commercial and residential developments. Instead of having to shell out huge sums for a stake in the properties – as they do now – investors will be allowed to buy small, affordable shareholdings.There will also be a tax advantage, as Reits will be able to trade property assets without paying corporation tax.The trusts are already popular in other countries, including Australia and the US, but their arrival here has been held up by two issues.

Better to pay up and be well prepared in the future.Q: For some time, I’ve been keen to invest money in one of the new real estate investment trusts [Reits] promised by the Government. Although your complaint concerns the DVLA, withholding payment means you’ll break your contract with your landline phone company. In an industry consultation, which ends on 6 December, it has proposed that 0870 calls should in the future follow the normal national pricing model, where call costs are based on geographic location.For now, it has decreed that 0870 charges won’t rise any further.If you come across any of these numbers in the near future, try visiting www.saynoto0870 . This website suggests ways to get around the cost, usually by ringing a company’s normal landline number and asking for a particular department instead.For now, refusing to pay your bill would be a bad move. Others include local authority helplines and travel services, and government public enquiry lines like those for the Department for Education and Skills.Businesses using 0870 numbers include banks and credit card companies.Ofcom wants to call time on revenue sharing. They get nothing from using regular 01 and 02 landline numbers.The DVLA isn’t the only body keen on 0870. Not least Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, which recently ordered a shake-up of 0870 numbers.As you’ve discovered, the calls are expensive, costing as much as 8p a minute from a landline at peak time, against just 3p if you were to ring the same company on an 01 or 02 phone number.According to research by consumer body Which?, the cost of calling an 0870 number in the daytime is 7.5p a minute with BT or 8p with cable provider NTL/Telewest.And the price really hits home when you’re left holding on the line, or navigating your way through a forest of options to reach a particular department.Companies and organisations like to use these numbers because they share the “per minute” revenue from the cost of the call with the telecoms provider.