No surprise that many become ill. Some end up in debt, homeless or involved in crime. The cost is not just to the young people, says a recent report by Youth Access. There’s [...]]]> Young people who have problems with money, housing or jobs need good quality advice. What happens if they do not get it?

No surprise that many become ill. Some end up in debt, homeless or involved in crime. The cost is not just to the young people, says a recent report by Youth Access. There’s also a real cost to the tax payer – with the biggest strain put on the NHS budget.

The report, The outcomes & impact of youth advice – the evidence, brings together research evidence on the difference advice makes to young people’s lives. It also quotes young people’s thoughts about what would have happened if they had not got advice:

“I would have been homeless, mentally disturbed and in the gutter.”

“I would have got worse and committed crimes.”

“I think I would probably have had a breakdown….and still looking for advice.”

“I would probably have been dead, I was sharing needles, involved in prostitution.”

Providing quality advice, including legal or rights-based advice, costs money. But not as much as not providing it. The report’s author, James Kenrick, points out that one estimate of the cost of unresolved problems experienced by 16-24 year olds is £1 billion a year.

The OFT, along with [...]]]> The Office of Fair trading has logged my complaint about two websites offering loans to young people that are apparently unregistered and unlicensed. The sites, loans for young people and loans for 18 year olds, do not seem to have a consumer credit licence – a legal requirement in the UK.

The OFT, along with local authority trading standards services, has a duty to enforce the law. It will take into account other complaints it receives about these sites. it won’t, however, disclose details of what action it takes. So the only thing we’ll see is whether the websites are still operating. Meanwhile, young people need to know to avoid any unregistered lender – whether an apparently friendly and helpful loan shark or a tempting website.

Feel free to add your complaint about these sites by emailing the Office of Fair Trading

Its tempting offers should ring warning bells. It says it provides secured and unsecured loans to 18-30 year olds with a job. Bad credit history is no barrier. There is a promise of [...]]]> Search the internet for “loans for young people” and you may come across a site called, plainly enough, loans for young people.

Its tempting offers should ring warning bells. It says it provides secured and unsecured loans to 18-30 year olds with a job. Bad credit history is no barrier. There is a promise of no “time-consuming formalities or credit checks”. Acceptance is 100%, apparently. The site is written in non-idiomatic English. This, for instance, is not very reassuring:

Many people think that there is no expense of the young people and it is only the family man and others who need to spend money in several situations. It is actually totally wrong and just like a married man or a father to children; the young people too have their particular expenses though the reasons may be different.

There is none of the small print that legitimate credit companies are obliged to include on their websites. No company name or registration number, no consumer credit license number, no statement about typical APRs or the perils of not keeping up with repayments. There is just a meaningless and contradictory statement about not being a direct lender or a broker.

So who are they, and why are they allowed to tout for young, probably desperate, customers online? The domain name was registered by a non-UK individual called Rajat Kumar at an address in New Delhi, India.

A similar site offers loans for 18 year olds. Almost identical in approach and content, this domain was registered by Pawan Kumar, also with an address in New Delhi.

Can this be stopped? Do the UK licensing authorities have any powers to close down such sites? There are well-advertised ways to report illegal lenders or loan sharks. But who should this be reported to?

I will try to find out. Meanwhile, it is a good reminder to spread the word among young people that borrowing money from anyone but a registered, licensed lender is almost certain to lead to serious trouble.

Three years ago Youthnet surveyed young people asking what was their single greatest fear. Around 14 per cent answered death – their own or that of someone close to them. Around the same proportion said [...]]]> Death no longer heads the list of young people’s greatest fear. Under 25s are now far more terrified by debt.

Three years ago Youthnet surveyed young people asking what was their single greatest fear. Around 14 per cent answered death – their own or that of someone close to them. Around the same proportion said their greatest fear was financial insecurity and debt. The researchers were understandably struck by the powerful concern about money. “This could be a reflection of the current financial climate,” they observed.

Yeah, well it’s a lot worse now. Repeating the survey this summer Youthnet found that 24 per cent now list debt as their greatest fear. Death was singled out by only 4 per cent.

The online survey was completed by 1,101 respondents aged 16 to 25 living in the UK.

That’s an old saying, to trigger discussion.

It is irresponsible, possibly dangerous and funny only to a certain sense of humour. Still, it is a provocative way to explore what young people really [...]]]> “Alcohol can get you through a time of no money better than money will get you through a time of no alcohol.”

That’s an old saying, to trigger discussion.

It is irresponsible, possibly dangerous and funny only to a certain sense of humour. Still, it is a provocative way to explore what young people really value. Help them see the connections between what they have, what they want and how to get it.

Clearly the saying as expressed above is going nowhere, except as gallows humour for people with admitted alcohol dependency problems.

So ask what young people would change it to. Replace alcohol with a gap, and ask young people to complete it in a way that is true for them.

“______ can get you through a time of no money better than money will get you through a time of no ______.”

What word or phrase would young people substitute? Friends, perhaps. Or music? Football?

Be light-hearted, while exploring a key aspect of the psychology of money – what is it for and how much does it matter?

Do it if you want. But don’t fret if you don’t get full marks. Nine out of ten US citizens who did it got at least one wrong. It’s very focused on [...]]]> Most people ignore most financial literacy because most financial literacy ignores most people. Something like that is clear from this financial knowledge test.

Do it if you want. But don’t fret if you don’t get full marks. Nine out of ten US citizens who did it got at least one wrong. It’s very focused on financial products and long-term financial planning. It’s not where most people in the UK are.

The test is taken from the Financial Literacy Center in the States. It’s a fine and well-organised site with plenty of sound, useful advice and ideas. It also demonstrates how restricted the view of what financial literacy is. Knowing what happens to bond prices when interest rates rise is not part of the knowledge, skills and attitude that would improve the money management of young people in the UK. Or any age group.

One day I’ll devise a test that touches on some  real questions about money, to give people confidence about what they know and what they could do with finding out.

The e-petition for compulsory financial education never did make much sense. It is not getting any better after promoter Martin Lewis claimed his latest champion. Lewis, founder of bargain-hunters’ website moneysaving expert, says 200 MPs have signed the petition. That’s getting on for a third of all MPs in the [...]]]>

Ed Balls Photo: Jarvin

The e-petition for compulsory financial education never did make much sense. It is not getting any better after promoter Martin Lewis claimed his latest champion. Lewis, founder of bargain-hunters’ website moneysaving expert, says 200 MPs have signed the petition. That’s getting on for a third of all MPs in the Commons. Today he reveals that shadow chancellor Ed Balls is a supporter.

Bear in mind that the point of the e-petition is to secure a parliamentary debate. If 200-plus MPs, including the shadow chancellor, lack the influence, ability or nous between them to organise even a parliamentary debate… they must be the most clueless bunch of legislators imaginable.

It doesn’t make sense. Legislators don’t try to influence policy by signing petitions set up by the public. It’s absurd. Someone is mocking someone.

It could be argued that the e-petition is necessary and useful as a litmus-test of public opinion. If a high proportion of the public back a move, MPs ought not to ignore it. The trouble is that the moneysaving expert numbers don’t look very good. Currently 64,000 people have signed the e-petition, which was launched over a month ago. The moneysaving expert website claims that 8 million people from the UK visit the site every month. In other words, the support among Martin Lewis’s loyal followers is around 0.8 per cent. The petition is not backed by 99.2 per cent of those who visit his website. What kind of mandate is that?

One thing is clear. There has been a tiny rise in the percentage of children in workless households. For the three months to June 2011, the percentage of children living in households where none of the adults has [...]]]> Falling, rising or staying the same….interpretation of the latest workless households figures seems to offer all possibilities.

One thing is clear. There has been a tiny rise in the percentage of children in workless households. For the three months to June 2011, the percentage of children living in households where none of the adults has ever worked was 2.6 per cent (307,000 children), up 0.3 percentage points from a year earlier.

Just over 300,000 children live in households where none of the adults has ever worked. It’s a lot. But it’s 2.6 per cent of children. Which perhaps doesn’t fit the scaremongering that some give out of large swathes of the country being filled with generation upon generation who have never worked. Most will be in single parent households.

More details on the figures from the Office for National Statistics.