# Rip Off Ireland - Reviews



## Debasser (9 Aug 2005)

*Rip Off Republic - Reviews*

So what did you all think of the program & Eddie? I felt it was highly simplistic but that was part of the beauty of the program. The set looked a bit RTE cardboard 70's style but I couldn't fault Eddies ability to talk without pauses or em's , in fact 'ah's etc etc. Over all I was very impressed. Some nice comic moments thrown in such as sending a nappy to Michael Matin or the local in Trim who observed her local councillor shoppping in Lidl (same man had originally objected to one in Trim!).
The irony of of a state body such as RTE showing the program was not lost on me  
One question, has Eddie had a dye job done on his hair ?? 

Would be great to hear what you all think..


----------



## Carpenter (9 Aug 2005)

Good morning Debasser

You bet me to it, myself and the missus watched it last night and were well impressed!  As you say it could be quite simplistic in it's style but it had pace and maybe the message needs to be simply put, i.e. there's a string of vested interests who have a lot of political clout in consumer issues.  I like Eddie's presenting style, he's a change from the usual gushing Caroline Morahan type RTE protege (Miriam O'Callaghan) but the format makes him look a little "teachery", but maybe that's intentional!  Overall I think he covered a lot of ground for the first episode and all with a good dash of humour, I look forward to the next installment........


----------



## DOBBER22 (9 Aug 2005)

I missed it! does anybody know if it will be repeated this weekend?


----------



## tiger (9 Aug 2005)

Any one posted a nappy yet?

A bit of a stunt, and I think Eddie might be going out on a limb here (don't under estimate the apathy of the Irish consumer!), but I think it's a brave move and I'm a big fan.  Don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but from where I'm sitting he's the only one giving the irish consumer a voice.  I reckon it will take at least 100,000 nappies to start making newspaper front pages/editorials...


----------



## Vanilla (9 Aug 2005)

I'm sending one. Its a clean one ( after some thought).


----------



## Carpenter (9 Aug 2005)

What's the address for Micheal again?  I'm going to send him one of Lidl's best!


----------



## Teabag (9 Aug 2005)

Deffo posting a nappy. Least I can do. No point in complaining otherwise.
Viva la revolution.


----------



## davido (9 Aug 2005)

Speaking of vested interests, I wonder if Eddie has shares in Huggies or Pampers?


----------



## Vanilla (9 Aug 2005)

Is this the address?



Minister Michael Martin, Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, 23 Kildare Street, Dublin 2.


----------



## JAG (9 Aug 2005)

Hi All

Can someone explain the deal with the nappy?  I only caught parts of the show and came back to it at the end when the address for MM was on the screen?  What's the story?


----------



## stobear (9 Aug 2005)

I had the address written on the envelope before the credits rolled, its http://www.entemp.ie/contact/index.htm


----------



## Teabag (9 Aug 2005)

Minister Micheal Martin
Dept Enterprise,Trade & Employment
Kildare Street
Dublin 2.

Is that right ?


----------



## shnaek (9 Aug 2005)

I thought Eddie was great. He's not going to be too popular in government or business circles after it. But fair play - at last Irish consumers have a leader who might inject a dose of outrage into the Irish psyche.


----------



## Debasser (9 Aug 2005)

*Re: Rip Off Republic - Reviews*

I have long held the opinion that there are major 2 reasons for this countries ill's. 1 the poitical system i.e. parish pump politics & 2. the country is effectively run by lobby/pressure groups. I honestly think that Eddies program could be the start of something big. I'll be tuning in next week, nappy is in the post to Mr.Martin & I'll continue to complain,shop around where I see fit. Shock stat from last night had to be the price of cement. 85 Euros per tonne here, 45 in Germany + 10 to transport it !!!!! Crazy. CRH may have some competition..


----------



## Noor77 (9 Aug 2005)

I was in the audience for one of the shows. We had to do a few takes at times - and his make-up artist came out quite a bit to powder his nose!!!


----------



## Decani (9 Aug 2005)

Wouldn't it be funny if a future topic would be any postal service rip-offs


----------



## Humpback (9 Aug 2005)

I know it'll cost a bit, but should the nappies be sent by registered post? Given that the Department officials will know what's going on, and will recognise spongy A4 envelopes, if they're registered, they'll have to at least go through the trouble of accepting delivery.


----------



## Molly (9 Aug 2005)

why nappies ????? can anyone explain. I watched the first 20 minutes or so, but it didnt really grab my attention, curious to know about posting nappies to michael martin   ?????


----------



## jz1 (9 Aug 2005)

Good show, very intresting.
I suppose it made us all angry at how ripped off we are everyday here.
..I can see Eddie going into politics himself one day


----------



## Vanilla (9 Aug 2005)

About the nappies- Eddie was explaining about the Groceries Act and how pressure groups are lobbying Michael Martin to keep it in place ( it stops retailers from passing on savings to consumers). I think he said that there is a list of items which the Act applies to and that nappies are due to come off this year. So he said we should all post a nappy to the Minister as a protest about the existance of the Act at all. Or something like that.


----------



## Grumpy (9 Aug 2005)

a REAL consumer programme???...Whats RTE coming to??
Why a nappy?.....I`d already posted a bag of cement by the nappy stage of the programme!!
Check out the "Lidl Price Variance Irl v France" in Good Deals, Bad Deals section.Most seem to think there`s no problem.Is this for real!


----------



## Eurofan (9 Aug 2005)

I only caught the tail end of last nights show but was in the audience for the last one.

The message has indeed been simplified to an extreme degree but I'd agree that that may have been necessary to reach the widest possible audience.

If it at least brings attention to the power of lobby groups in Ireland then it will have achieved much. The nappy is in the post


----------



## michaelm (9 Aug 2005)

I thought it was simplistic however it probably had to be to reach the masses whose main interests are English soccer teams, Mobile Phones and Tabloid Papers.  I thought the best line was when the kids chanted 'The low tax economy is a fairytale'; I wish Joe public would realise this.  I hope Eddie does a show on government money wasting & joke tendering.


----------



## Teabag (9 Aug 2005)

Posted the nappy during lunchtime. 60c well spent.
C'mon lads and ladies, post your nappies. We do enough complaining about rip-off this and that but we rarely do anything about it. This is the only decent action point I have seen so far. Worth sending a message.


----------



## ajapale (9 Aug 2005)

I missed the show. Can anyone tell me what the significance of the nappies is?

thanks ajapale


----------



## kfpg (9 Aug 2005)

The groceries act unnecessarily protects large multiples from real competition. Surprisingly one example of an item protected by the act are disposable nappies. The legitimacy of nappies being on a "groceries" act is the subject of a high court challenge and as i understand it the action tackles the very existence of the groceries act. Eddie maintains that the large stores have enough protection from the competition authority et al without the need for the groceries act. Mr.Hobbs wants us to send a nappy to M.Martin to show that consumers want more competition amongst retailers and push him to withdraw the protection offered by the Groceries Act.
For me as stated above its all a bit tabloid but on the other hand we do have a tabloid / media driven government. Send em in it will probably work...................


----------



## Betsy Og (9 Aug 2005)

Great show, thoroughly enjoyed it.

Did he really say 77% of the price of a car is tax??, hard to believe that one, car would be fairly cheap at 23% of current retail.

Being tight myself (though no Cavan blood  ) I found myself cheering along to much of the programme.

Notice how he mentioned % fees re houses about 10 times and specifically brought up the conveyancing issue, felt some vindication after the "verbal mugging" I got over on the legal issues board when I had the sheer audacity to pose the question if the legal system was unfairly creaming it with regard to % fees on conveyancing.


----------



## Lemurz (9 Aug 2005)

Missed the show myself - Anybody know if it's available online anywhere?

About time us consumers took some real positive action to show the Government we're more importnat than industry lobby groups.  

Another nappy on the way to the Minister.

Go Eddie Go! - Eddie for President! 

Tip - if you don't have any nappies in the house, contact your local creche who'll be gald to supply a few used ones to reduce their refuse charges.


----------



## NOAH (9 Aug 2005)

until rte give me and others a Free To View card to watch  rte  on SKY rather than expect me to pay twice ie a licence and a sky sub they will never make a rip off programme that I will watch. How can one watch a programme when the channel broadcasting it are guilty of the biggesst rip off!!

noah


----------



## Joe1234 (9 Aug 2005)

Is it free to post the nappy?


----------



## Cahir (9 Aug 2005)

Will all the episodes have the annoying sections with the kids?  If so I think I'll have to switch over during those bits next time.


----------



## WaterWater (9 Aug 2005)

Whatever happened to the driver of the waste collection/county council truck that drove down the road with the protestor hanging from the bonnet? The guy could have been killed!


----------



## tiger (9 Aug 2005)

ok, just bought the nappies, got 10 for €2.53, cheapest I could find.  Got the A4 envelopes, will get the 60c stamps tomorrow.

Should I put a note in as well, or will they get the message?


----------



## CCOVICH (9 Aug 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> Will all the episodes have the annoying sections with the kids? If so I think I'll have to switch over during those bits next time.



No. The show I attended had no kids in the clips.  That bit kinda pi**ed me off as well.  And the fact that the end clashes with the start of Lost on RTE2.

I though the Pee Flynn clip was hilarious.  Yeah, you try and keep three houses and a housekeepers on €100,000 (after tax) a year.


----------



## Teabag (9 Aug 2005)

tiger said:
			
		

> Should I put a note in as well, or will they get the message?



I put in a wee post-it telling Mr Martin to scrap the Groceries Act and give us consumers a really competitive market etc. 
Doubt he will get to read it though.


----------



## RainyDay (9 Aug 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> I put in a *wee  * post-it telling Mr Martin to scrap the Groceries Act and


Pun intended?


----------



## Sue Ellen (10 Aug 2005)

"Speaking of vested interests, I wonder if Eddie has shares in Huggies or Pampers?"


----------



## Murt10 (10 Aug 2005)

There is no need to put a stamp on a letter to a Government Department. Just write "freepost" on the envelope and it will be delivered. 

An Post will at the end of the month bill the Department for the number of freepost items.


Murt


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Aug 2005)

The programme was entertaining. From the number of people who were prompted to send nappies, it seems to be highly motivational. 

But it was too much of a polemic and lecture and I would question a lot of the facts and issues raised.



> Shock stat from last night had to be the price of cement. 85 Euros per tonne here, 45 in Germany + 10 to transport it !!!!! Crazy.



So CRH is responsible for the high house prices in Ireland? ( I am a shareholder in CRH by the way). I will check this one out. It simply makes no sense. CRH's customers are the builders - all big businesses. In the EU, there can be no restrictions on importing cement. So why not set up a cement importing business? There is a huge demand for it. These numbers simply don't add up. And why compare with Germany? Germany is in an economic slump at the moment. Maybe it has massive overcapacity and cement is being dumped? Perhaps we should opt for an economic slump so that cement prices would be lower? 

Architects charge commission on the sale price of houses, so this is anti-competitive. Nonsense. The architecture market is competitive, but it's just very busy. Perhaps we should go back to the bust of the early 1980's when our architects all had to emigrate. Would we prefer this? I have only come across fees charged on the building costs, rather than the sales price, but maybe this is now the practice. But what should we do - force architects to charge according to a particular way? 

Conveyancing is anti-competitive? Nonsense!  It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors. 

But what ruined the credibility of the programme for me was the use of the bin protest thugs in a programme about "Rip-off" Ireland. The vast majority of people fully accept that they must pay for the disposal of the waste they produce. The vast majority of us accept that we must pay for the services we get. A few people have hijacked a bin tax campaign for political purposes and good guys like Eddie should see through this and not be giving them support for entertainment purposes.

Brendan


----------



## WaterWater (10 Aug 2005)

Would it also be possible to send the minister an email with a picture of a "nappy attachment"?


----------



## Bishop (10 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> Conveyancing is anti-competitive? Nonsense! It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors.
> Brendan


 
"Conveyance is anti-competitive? Nonsense! It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors. "



Brendan I think the point Eddie made was in relation to the number of conveyance that happen on one piece of land. Therefore the point being made was in relation to our archaic property ownership system not the solicitors making a fair bit of money off of it. I wonder however, if we tried to change what you agree is our “archaic property ownership system” will all the solicitors pat us on the back and wish us luck or try and prevent change? 



I think that programme was trying to effect a change of logic in the minds of the masses and get people to question and not simply accept everything that is presented to them by business and government. Given our history I think that is long overdue. This website did it for me, why not a programme like rip-off republic to do it for others?


----------



## Janet (10 Aug 2005)

I didn't get to see it at all - is it being repeated at any stage?  Can't find any mention of it on rte website.


----------



## podgerodge (10 Aug 2005)

great show.

Eddie Hobbs as opposed to any other consumer "head" ranting off in the media at least looks like he means every word he says.  No lip service "shop around" statements thank god!


----------



## Teabag (10 Aug 2005)

Bishop said:
			
		

> This website did it for me, why not a programme like rip-off republic to do it for others?



Whats this rip off ireland website ?? Did a google on it and found a Fine Gael site called www.ripoff.ie - is that it ? I closed it down immediately when I saw a picture of Enda Kenny.


----------



## stobear (10 Aug 2005)

Teabag, try this one. [broken link removed]


----------



## Humpback (10 Aug 2005)

Or [broken link removed].


----------



## Bishop (10 Aug 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> Whats this rip off ireland website ?? Did a google on it and found a Fine Gael site called [broken link removed] - is that it ? I closed it down immediately when I saw a picture of Enda Kenny.


 
Sorry Teabag I was referring to askaboutmoney which I've always found to be a site that asks questions of big business and government without simply accepting everything at face value. Run by a great team who look for very little in return.



As for http://www.ripoff.ie/ that is just as bad as listening to government. The opposition telling people what they need to hear but only in their own self interest.


[broken link removed] I've always found it useful if a little out fo date.


[broken link removed] never saw this one, looks interesting will check it out.


----------



## Humpback (10 Aug 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> great show. Eddie Hobbs as opposed to any other consumer "head" ranting off in the media at least looks like he means every word he says. No lip service "shop around" statements thank god!


 
I disagree with the above, and with the assertion by Eddie that we mightn't actually be bad shoppers.

The fact is that the majority of people (maybe not the community of AAM users) are bad shoppers in this country.

People want stuff NOW, rather than waiting a while, getting a better price, and buying later.


----------



## podgerodge (10 Aug 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> People want stuff NOW, rather than waiting a while, getting a better price, and buying later.



I agree absolutely.  All I meant is that he looks enthusiastic about the subject.  When I referred to the "shop around" slogan getting boring I was referring to the fact that consumer groups consistently tell us that we can save money by shopping around - which I think everybody from all "classes" knows already.  Not shopping around is because we are lazy or , as Ronan D John says - we want it now.  Not because we're thick and have to be told by organisations such as IFSRA that we can save money on car insurance if we ring more than one company to check the price! Do they really think that people are that silly?  (ok maybe it's useful as a guide to general prices but I don't think so - the danger with these surveys is that you might make an assumption that because a company is cheaper in one instance it might be for all others)


----------



## Grumpy (10 Aug 2005)

This is really a "letting off steam" thread.
New policy on LOS has killed it.
I suggest a rethink.


----------



## Teabag (10 Aug 2005)

So is there anyone on this thread that did not post a nappy ?

If so, why not ?


----------



## ClubMan (10 Aug 2005)

Can't be arsed.


----------



## Teabag (10 Aug 2005)

With respect Clubman, I asked for feedback from "anyone on this thread". 

I think that was your first posting but thanks for your input anyway.


----------



## Bishop (10 Aug 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> With respect Clubman, I asked for feedback from "anyone on this thread".
> 
> I think that was your first posting but thanks for your input anyway.






I would think Clubman was trying to be funny with the ARSED reference what with nappies being the item sent.



BTW, mine is going to today with the following letter:



Dear Minister Martin, 



On Monday night the 8th of August 2005 I watched a television programme on RTE where a Mr. Eddie Hobbs explained the details of the Groceries Order legislation that is currently undergoing review by your department. 



As a registered voter, consumer and citizen of this country, I would ask that you not betray the trust that I have placed in you as an elected minister of state by allowing big business lobby groups such as IBEC and RGDATA to influence your decision on the Grocery Order in any way and that you allow only the needs of the citizens of this country to direct your decisions. 



I would also ask that you repeal the Groceries Order as I feel that it unnecessarily adds to the cost of purchasing everyday goods. 



P.S. please sent this nappie and the rest you have been inundated with to St. Vincent De Paul so that they may make some good use of them, I promise to do the same with the rest of the pack I purchased to make my point.



Regards,


----------



## Humpback (10 Aug 2005)

Bishop said:
			
		

> [/font][/size]I would also ask that you repeal the Groceries Order as I feel that it unnecessarily adds to the cost of purchasing everyday goods.


 
I may be nitpicking here, but please bear with me for a minute.

Part of the statement above was also given as the reason from the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business as why the Groceries Order must be kept in place - that is, that in the Committees opinion, the Groceries Order is not making goods more expensive.

Isn't the issue that the Groceries Order isn't allowing us get goods at the cheapest possible price?

I accept that it's not making goods more expensive - but isn't it the case that the Groceries Order is artificially supporting a level of pricing, that without it, would make things cheaper - and that this is the reason it must go?


----------



## Teabag (10 Aug 2005)

Groceries Order 'adds €500 to food bills'

August 10, 2005 13:30
The Competition Authority has estimated that the Groceries Order, which bans below-cost selling, costs the average Irish household up to €481 a year.

In a submission to the Enterprise, Trade & Employment Minister Micheal Martin published today, the authority calls for the removal of the order.

Authority chair John Fingleton said the order pushed up food prices and was against the interest of consumers and the economy.


'The successful prosecution of two supermarkets in January 2004 for providing discounts on baby food is a perfect example of why the Groceries Order needs to be abolished. If this logic was applied in other sectors, for example clothes, it would make post-Christmas sales a criminal activity,' he added.

In an analysis carried out for the submission, the authority found that food prices had risen by just under 10% between 2000 and 2004, while prices of clothing and footwear had fallen 16% and household durables prices had dropped 4%.

The competition body said business costs could not be blamed, as rents, insurance, waste charges, electricity and wages were common across all retail sectors. It added that farm gate prices had remained stable in the period, and could not be blamed.

The authority said that food prices had stabilised in recent years - although at a higher level than in other countries - but it attributed this to increased competition following the arrival of Aldi and Lidl in Ireland.

It found that prices of food items covered by the Groceries Order has risen by 7.4% since June 2001, while items not covered had declined in price by 5%.


----------



## MOB (10 Aug 2005)

"Brendan I think the point Eddie made was in relation to the number of conveyance that happen on one piece of land. Therefore the point being made was in relation to our archaic property ownership system not the solicitors making a fair bit of money off of it. I wonder however, if we tried to change what you agree is our “archaic property ownership system” will all the solicitors pat us on the back and wish us luck or try and prevent change? "

Hi Bishop;

Eddie Hobbes was objecting to the fact that a conveyance has to be registered 201 times on a single land registry folio - once to the developer and 200 times to the individual house purchasers.  The problem is that when a house is sold, the transaction is quite separate (and, as it happens fundamentally different) from when the site was sold to a developer.  To suggest that this involves some sort of needless duplication of work is just plain wrong.   

Certainly there are elements of work which are duplicated in each transaction, but that is just the nature of commerce.  

You might as well complain about the inefficiency of 200 individual motorists each having to go through a petrol station forecourt to fill their cars.   It's not really relevant that all that petrol was delivered by a single tanker delivery, is it?

Having said that, I enjoyed the programme, and it will undoubtedly help to make consumers more aware of price issues.   Mind you, I would sit through an "info-mercial" advertising the all new no-more-slaving-in-the-kitchen, your-kids-will-love-you, super duper chop-n-slice device, thoroughly enjoying the "but that's not all" from the helpful host, so perhaps my opinion is not to be relied upon.


----------



## joe sod (10 Aug 2005)

"Conveyancing is anti-competitive? Nonsense! It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors."

It is when only solicitors are allowed do it. But the key issue as Eddie pointed out is solicitors taking a percentage of the property cost. It should be a flat fee the same as what a doctor would charge. It should be based on the value of the work done not on the value of the transaction


----------



## MOB (10 Aug 2005)

"But the key issue as Eddie pointed out is solicitors taking a percentage of the property cost.It should be a flat fee the same as what a doctor would charge. "

It is actually quite common for solicitors to charge a flat fee.  In fairness to Eddie, he pointed this out.

I don't think it is wholly accurate to say that doctors charge a flat fee.  At G.P. level, many doctors now have one charge for a short consultation and a higher charge for a longer consultation (which by the way is fine by me). 

Overall, the medical profession has a charging system which lacks transparency.  While I would have to agree that legal fees can also lack transparency I don't think that this is true of residential conveyancing fees.  

I don't think you are really on to a winner by suggesting that the legal profession should align its billing methods more closely to those of the medical profession.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Aug 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> Certainly there are elements of work which are duplicated in each transaction, but that is just the nature of commerce.


Hi Mob - Is it possible for you to quantify to this duplication? If you were to offer a 'special deal' on conveyancing in an estate where you had done the initial conveyance to the developer, how much would you reduce your price by?


----------



## CCOVICH (10 Aug 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> You might as well complain about the inefficiency of 200 individual motorists each having to go through a petrol station forecourt to fill their cars. It's not really relevant that all that petrol was delivered by a single tanker delivery, is it?



Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement.

If I want to buy petrol, I go to the station, I fill my car, I pay the station, I drive off.  Transaction complete.  If I want to buy a new apartment, I don't just call to the builder's office and hand over the money, and then the apartment's mine?


----------



## sherib (10 Aug 2005)

While Eddie Hobbs' programme was interesting and very entertaining, I wouldn't accept all his points - much of it was entertainment mixed with facts which were guaranteed to "wind us up". 

He indicated the number of professionals whose charges are based on _percentages _and questioned why this should be so. This included Surveyors, Solicitors and Architects and Auctioneers. What I'd like to know is: What is the difference in the work done in purchasing a house worth 500,000E compared to one of 750,000E or more? Obviously the percentage system brings a greater reward the more expensive the property. The Q is - is that justifiable? The government, via Stamp Duty, is happy to be in on that act.

I accept MOB's point that Eddie's claim that a piece of land sold to a developer who then built 200 houses on it represented 200 survey duplications was disengenuous. However, I cannot see the need for a mortgaged house owner being charged the full whack all over again upon remortgaging the same property, the deeds never having left the Building Society and with no change in ownership. A repeat Survey would be justifiable but not Solicitor's fees. My understanding is that a much simpler conveyancing system exists in Scotland for a fraction of the professional charges here. Joe Sod made this point and I fully concur.



> Orginally quoted by MOB
> I don't think you are really on to a winner by suggesting that the legal profession should align its billing methods more closely to those of the medical profession.


Why not? Medical Doctors will declare their fees, in advance, for consultations and procedures when asked. It would be a sad day if they timed every consultation and charged accordingly as I understand is the norm with many Solicitors - including time spent on phone calls. 

By the way Teabag your response to ClubMan 





> I think that was your first posting but thanks for your input anyway.


 is not accurate - by a distance! ClubMan's posts on AAM number 7,634 but he's been absent recently. Only saying this in case you didn't know. Apologies if you did.


----------



## MOB (10 Aug 2005)

"If you were to offer a 'special deal' on conveyancing in an estate where you had done the initial conveyance to the developer, how much would you reduce your price by?"

Hi Rainyday;

The answer to this specific question would normally be nil.  However, if I was buying more than one house in an estate, it would certainly be feasible for me to give a discount to each house purchaser.  In practice, this is what actually happens, albeit in a relatively informal way - I am more inclined to take new business for existing local housing estate purchases than I am for purchases in other areas.

I would guess that reading the title to an estate (and raising various queries as appropriate) might take up to 25% of the total time spent on a file.  Also, this is the expensive time (i.e. generally has to be a solicitor, whereas a lot of the other time spend on a conveyancing file is work that can be done by well trained support staff.)  So I suppose that it would pay me to give a discount of €200 per unit or thereabouts if I was doing a batch of house purchases in the same estate.

CCovich:  imperfect analogy I admit, but the point I was seeking to make is that the fact that a transaction has already occurred in relation to a product (i.e. purchase of site by developer) does not really lessen the transaction costs on a division and re-sale of that product. (i.e. subdivision and development as a housing estate).

Hi Sherib,

"However, I cannot see the need for a mortgaged house owner being charged the full whack all over again upon remortgaging the same property, the deeds never having left the Building Society and with no change in ownership."

I agree.  There is no good legal reason why this should happen, and it does not require any change at all to our legal system.   A couple of points do arise.  Firstly, if a mortgage is over €254k after top-up, further stamp duty needs to be paid, and this increased figure then needs to be registered in the land registry.  Secondly, some lenders will require a fresh mortgage deed for a further advance, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained to me.  Generally, PTSB will look for a fresh mortgage deed, while BOI, AIB, NIB will not.  However, PTSB will sometimes handle the top-up loan in-house (so the borrower doesn't need to get a solicitor at all).   Overall, there is no great consistency in this area, and there should be.   For a solicitor, the top-up mortgage is not a money spinner - we try to avoid it if at all possible, because we cannot charge an economically viable fee without the client (justifiably) feeling hard done by.


On transparency of fees, of course a doctor will tell you what something will cost;  So will a solicitor.  But does this equate to transparency?
The consumer is generally not in any sort of position to assess if the price quoted represents good value.   When you say that "It would be a sad day if they timed every consultation and charged accordingly " I am afraid I have to disagree slightly.    As a business, doctors and solicitors have this in common - they have no stock on which they can put a mark-up; all they have to sell is their own time.   Sometimes, I can save a six figure sum for a client with 10 minutes work plus 20 years study, experience and knowledge.   That is when I put aside my time sheet and have a "wee chat" with the client.  Sometimes a surgeon can charge €4,000 for a procedure (and maybe a lot more for all I know - I am, thankfully, not a large consumer of medical services) which takes an hour, plus two follow-ups of an hour each, together with the experience and reputation which makes that surgeon the one in demand for this procedure.  Will the surgeon attempt to justify a charge of €1333 per hour?  Of course not.   While time billing is not always appropriate (at least not from the supplier's perspective!), it is transparent.   I think more transparency is probably not a bad thing for the consumer.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Aug 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> The answer to this specific question would normally be nil.  However, if I was buying more than one house in an estate, it would certainly be feasible for me to give a discount to each house purchaser.  In practice, this is what actually happens, albeit in a relatively informal way - I am more inclined to take new business for existing local housing estate purchases than I am for purchases in other areas.
> 
> I would guess that reading the title to an estate (and raising various queries as appropriate) might take up to 25% of the total time spent on a file.  Also, this is the expensive time (i.e. generally has to be a solicitor, whereas a lot of the other time spend on a conveyancing file is work that can be done by well trained support staff.)  So I suppose that it would pay me to give a discount of €200 per unit or thereabouts if I was doing a batch of house purchases in the same estate.


THanks MOB - Roughly what percentage discount would the €200 represent (I'm guessing somewhere between 10%-20% - right?)

I was thinking about a slightly different scenario to the one you outline. I was thinking about a case where the developer recommends a solicitor in much the same way that he may recommend a tile supplier or a bathroom supplier. So the solicitor does the necessaary studying of the title up front, and can then offer all purchasers on that estate a bargain rate - Is this feasible? I guess there might be some concern about the independence of the solicitor in this case. Are there any other issues?


----------



## RainyDay (10 Aug 2005)

Grumpy said:
			
		

> This is really a "letting off steam" thread.
> New policy on LOS has killed it.
> I suggest a rethink.


Hi Grumpy - I'd love to hear your views on this. Can I suggest you expand on your views on this issue. Rather than diverting this discussion, can you post on this thread?

I'm unclear what you think has been killed - LOS or this topic or what?


----------



## MOB (11 Aug 2005)

"So the solicitor does the necessary studying of the title up front, and can then offer all purchasers on that estate a bargain rate - Is this feasible? I guess there might be some concern about the independence of the solicitor in this case."

It is feasible; it does happen; I disapprove, and so does the Law Society, for the reason that it is difficult to be in a position of arguing with a builder on behalf of your client (as  happens in perhaps 10% of cases) while relying on th esame builder for referral of business.  However, if I might give a plug to the much maligned auctioneer, it is common for the estate agent to make recommendations to hosuoe purchasers.   In Dublin, I believe that this process has become a little mercenary (referral fees, induceements etc.) but in a rural area it is certainly worth asking the auctioneer for a recommendation, because the chances are that he will recommend the same solicitors over and  over for a particular estate (though he will be careful not to recommend the same solicitors for every estate - as what goes around comes around)


----------



## Teabag (11 Aug 2005)

Bank Manager said:
			
		

> Didn't see the programme, but I'm intrigued to know what sending nappies to a minister is supposed to achieve



A few postbags full of nappies is supposed to send a signal to the minister that the peasants are not happy. 

Have you a better idea ? 

Solicitor mumbo jumbo, begrudgery & apathy have killed this topic.


----------



## Debasser (11 Aug 2005)

Forgot to mention that the ratings were a total success for the show according to last night's Evening Herald(!) they were over 500k which for summer is quite substantial. Well done Eddie & I for one will be tuning in next Monday.


----------



## ajapale (11 Aug 2005)

> Have you a better idea ?



Yes Im sending him (the minister, not Eddie) a sachet of infant formula.

ajapale


----------



## Henny Penny (11 Aug 2005)

Is EH going to run for office ... i'm sure he'd get in ... especially in his native county ...


----------



## ClubMan (11 Aug 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> Solicitor mumbo jumbo, begrudgery & apathy have killed this topic.


Whether you agree with him (?) or not any reasonable reader must admit that _MOB's _posts are always well constructed, fact based and usually very helpful. To accuse him of mumbo jumbo is out of order in my opinion.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2005)

The Cement situation

The price of bulk cement in Ireland is the same as in Europe generally, around €70 a ton. 

The price in Germany is around €45 a ton. There is massive overcapacity due to the economic downturn in Germany. Some cement producers have gone bust because €45 is not an economic price to produce cement at. 

It would cost a lot more than €10 a ton to transport it to Ireland. It would be a major logistical operation involving shipping along the Rhine and operatin storage facilities. 

This makes more sense than Eddie's claims about cement. However, if anyone has any more detailed information, I would be interesting in hearing it. In particular, it surprises me that cement could be €45 a ton in Germany and €70 a ton in neighbouring countries. I just don't get that.

Brendan


----------



## Teabag (11 Aug 2005)

I am sure that MOB's topics are very well constructed but I dont think that when people think of Rip-Off Ireland they necessarily think of rip-off legal fees. This topic should be about the costs of normal day-to-day things such as food, petrol, drink etc etc. 
Rip off Professionals is a topic for another day. And there is a legal forum on this site for conveyancing discussions/arguments. I have only ever used a solicitor once and I found the fees fairly reasonable.

Viva la revolution ?


----------



## ClubMan (11 Aug 2005)

Teabag said:
			
		

> I am sure that MOB's topics are very well constructed but I dont think that when people think of Rip-Off Ireland they necessarily think of rip-off legal fees. This topic should be about the costs of normal day-to-day things such as food, petrol, drink etc etc.


I didn't see the whole programme but judging by this_ EH _did deal with allegedly "rip-off"  conveyancing fees and/or practices in the programme so discussion of this issue - by _MOB _and others - certainly is relevant to this thread.


----------



## CCOVICH (11 Aug 2005)

Each show will address different issues.  The one I was at was about 'fun' i.e. drinking, eating out, getting a haircut.  The message was very much the same though, it's the government's fault. (I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with this, it just seemed pretty obvious that this is the point being made in both shows I have seen).


Teabag-this thread is entitled Rip Off Ireland (should be Rip Off Republic)-Reviews.  It is not about the cost of day-to-day living.  The show attacked solicitors and conveyencing.  People have the right to agree with this, and solicitors have the right to defend themselves.  You are trying to act as a 'moderator' where you have no right to.  If you want a thread devoted to groceries, why don't you set one up, or join the thread that Lemurz started?


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Aug 2005)

just on the petrol station analogy (1 conveyance leading to 250 others is like complaining because the fuel tankers load has to be transferred to the 250 cars using it, via the petrol pump)

when you leave the petrol station you have a product, you werent charged for the service of getting it from the fuel store to your petrol tank. It is the service fee that people are complaining about. And, ok, theres more to conveyancing to filling petrol so a fee is appropriate, just how much of a fee is the question.

I think the more substantive points re conveyancing were:

1. Should it be limited to legal profession? (think not. For instance, Joe Punters can be Registered Trademark/Patent Agents, once they pass the exam, why not the same for conveyancing. Only need the Leaving Cert to do the exam).
2. Should there be a better system than the current dissection of title? Dont know enough about this but suspect theres a better way - Scotland mentioned - wasnt there a similar type suggestion re house sellers, that they might pay to have a solicitor do the title search and have it available for inspection by potential purchasers (if any doubts re independence of solicitor then make that report a statutory report - like the audit report).
3. Should there be a % fee? Cant see the logic in this, if its a bigger transaction in terms of complexity then fair enough, but the mere value shouldnt influence it. And I dont think insurance is an argument for this - as far as I'm aware, professional indemnity isnt that expensive and the cover is substantial.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Aug 2005)

Betsy Og said:
			
		

> when you leave the petrol station you have a product, you werent charged for the service of getting it from the fuel store to your petrol tank.


This analogy seems somewhat fallacious. Surely the costs of running the petrol station itself (e.g. buildings, fixtures/fittings, staff, light/heat/electricity etc.) are subsumed into the pump price for fuel? You are not just paying for fuel but also (at least in part) for all the ancillary costs - not to mention profit. In fact, one might argue that the service/ancillary costs built into fuel prices are even less transparent than the service costs charged by professionals such as solicitors. Ultimately the analogy is somewhat redundant.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Ultimately the analogy is somewhat redundant.


 
Agreed

....


----------



## sherib (11 Aug 2005)

It seems to me the issues raised by Eddie Hobbs regarding % conveyancing costs remain valid and have not been addressed. They were summarised by Betsy Og:



> 1. Should it be limited to legal profession?
> 2. Should there be a better system than the current dissection of title?
> 3. Should there be a % fee?


These costs represent a sizeable burden of expenditure for the average person further increased by stamp duty. 

MOB agreed there was "no good legal reason" why a person re-mortgaging their home should have to pay legal fees all over again on the same property. 


> ...some lenders will require a fresh mortgage deed for a further advance, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained to me. Generally, PTSB will look for a fresh mortgage deed, while BOI, AIB, NIB will not. For a solicitor, the top-up mortgage is not a money spinner - we try to avoid it if at all possible, because we cannot charge an economically viable fee without the client (justifiably) feeling hard done by.


 
It appears from this that _the fault_ lies with the Building Society - PTSB in the case instanced by me. Six years ago I remortgaged my home to a total sum of £60,000 (no additional stamp duty required). The legal costs came to approx. £900.00. I consulted another Solicitor to see if I could get a smaller quote. The answer was no.

MOB agrees "_there is no great consistency in this area, and there should be_". The Q is: Is it the remit of the Law Society, the Building Society or our government to eliminate this duplication of legal fees? Since top up mortgages are not uncommon these days, this is not a trivial issue.


----------



## daltonr (13 Aug 2005)

Brendan 
I don't know if it was in the broadcast but Eddie made the point that he has no problem paying for his waste. Very few of us do. The reason it was in the show was to highlight the use of regressive taxes that hit the worst off hardest and also to show how the state deals with people who oppose it. Both valid points i think.

I notice many people here commenting on how simplistic the show was.  It had to be.  The lies that it was trying to set straight are very simplistic.

When the government claims to be running a low tax economy and when they claim to be tackling the cost of housing those lies are presented in childlike terms.

If you get more info on the cement keep us posted.

Rd


----------



## RainyDay (14 Aug 2005)

From today's SBPost - [broken link removed].


----------



## CCOVICH (14 Aug 2005)

Fair play Eddie.  No-one from government trying to defend the indefensible (yet), just sneaky complaints and 'outrage'.

Was this a ploy by RTE to extract a higher licence fee?  i.e. "let us charge what we want, or we will make more of the same......"


----------



## ajapale (14 Aug 2005)

SBPost article.

This smells like a PR stunt to me. Anyone agree?

ajapale


----------



## Lemurz (14 Aug 2005)

Martin unhappy with nappies 

[broken link removed]


----------



## MissRibena (15 Aug 2005)

I like Eddie and think he makes plenty of important points - even if some are a bit questionable.  I think he is likeable too which is important when trying to be heard.  I like the show, although I didn't see it all (bit of a _Lost_ addict since I only have access to Irish stations these days). I even think a consumer protest is a good idea but (and I know I'm risking the wrath of the the entire AAM audience with this) could Eddie not have come up with something a bit more intelligent to allow us make our point than sending a nappy?  It's like a schoolyard prank.  I just don't see how this is the way to go if we want to protest about serious issues and be taken seriously.  I think it's a real missed opportunity.

I didn't send a nappy and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks it's too daft to be a part of.

Rebecca


----------



## Cahir (15 Aug 2005)

I also thought the nappy thing was a bit daft especially as I don't know anyone with kids so I'd have to go to the bother of buying a pack of nappies (apparently expensive?) just to make the point that it costs too much for nappies!!!


----------



## CCOVICH (15 Aug 2005)

Miss Ribena, Cahir, have you any ideas on how consumers should get their point across?

It would be nice to think that a well thought out and factual submission on why the Groceries Order is bad for consumers sent to the Minister would do the trick, but I doubt that it would somehow.


----------



## Cahir (15 Aug 2005)

I don't know what's on the list but surely it would be a point better made if it was an everyday item rather than a nappy or even something that can be purchased as a single item instead of having a pack of nappies lying round the house for years.


----------



## Humpback (15 Aug 2005)

I think the nappy was sent because of the ridiculousness of it being included on the list in the first place.

Plus, it's a damn sight easier to post a nappy rather than a jar of jam, or tin of beans.


----------



## MissRibena (15 Aug 2005)

What's wrong with a proper submission with a petition attached? Even an online petition?  Or even just sending emails?  At least with a petition it would be easier to verify independently how many people were in favour of the proposal.   700 nappies doesn't sound very much if the ratings really were 500,000.

As Cahir said, why send a nappy?  It's just a bit silly.  It's not even a very represenative item; even among parents it's not everyone who has kids of nappy-wearing age. What about pensioners or people with kids in college or single people like me? If we wanted to make a point through an absurd gesture, why not send a slice of bread in an envelope?! At least it's biodegradeable in less than 200 years or whatever and more people use it.   Even that's daft though, TBH.

I think it's fairly patronising to joe soap, if Eddie is resorting to populist/tabloid-style stunt to get him fired up. I think he should give the public a bit more credit, when they/we feel strongly about something, they/we do take a stand.  Look at the protests against the war in Iraq or the Shell pipeline thing. Of course, whether or not they/we are listened to is another matter.  Maybe the nappy thing will work out better than a more dignified protest, who knows.  

Rebecca


----------



## stobear (15 Aug 2005)

The date has passed  but my feedback was [broken link removed]


----------



## Teabag (15 Aug 2005)

The nappy was picked to show how rediculous the Groceries Act is. It is on the list so it is representative of it.

Only 700 nappies sent ? Thats apathetic Ireland. I dont think 499,300 people found it a patronising idea. We are much better at complaining on internet sites and in pubs about the high prices (when drinking an over-priced pint) but when the first credible action is suggested, people attack the action. I am happy that I sent a nappy and I hope the message gets through. 

Looking forward to hearing what Eddie has to say tonight.


----------



## Cahir (15 Aug 2005)

At least there's not 499,300 almost full packs of nappies going to landfill!


----------



## Humpback (15 Aug 2005)

MissRibena said:
			
		

> I think it's fairly patronising to joe soap, if Eddie is resorting to populist/tabloid-style stunt to get him fired up. I think he should give the public a bit more credit, when they/we feel strongly about something, they/we do take a stand. Look at the protests against the war in Iraq or the Shell pipeline thing. Of course, whether or not they/we are listened to is another matter.


 
I think that the audience Eddie was looking for here were those who don't necessarily read the newspapers (IT, II, or SBP etc) or would be users of this board for example. There are enough people who read those papers and who are familiar with the ROI phenomonen already, and have been for a couple of years, yet what have they done/said so far.

Consumers have power, yet in the face of everything to do with ROI in the past couple of years, we as a group have done absolutely nothing except take it on the chin from government and big business.

We may do our own things in our own way (shopping around, changing bank account etc), but we as the more educated and knowledgable Irish consumers don't really care enough to actually do much else.

The last chance for Irish consumers is to go for the lowest common denominator, which is what I think Eddie is now appealing to, since the middle and upper classes don't really care enough to do anything. If they did care, don't you think something would have been done by now???


----------



## Vanilla (15 Aug 2005)

> What's wrong with a proper submission with a petition attached? Even an online petition? Or even just sending emails?




Two comments in relation to the above
One- this will not make the papers or radio or tv in the way if sufficient people had sent nappies, it would have.
Two- why don't you start this petition, or send an e-mail, because the more consumers do object, in whatever way, the better.

I sent a nappy, it may have been daft, but at least I did something. I also gave a packet of nappies ( that are too small for my daughter) to other people to send.


----------



## Jister (15 Aug 2005)

I was on holidays in the west of Ireland recently. In one village there were three shops. All run by old people. The place is crying out for a supervalu / mace / centra etc. to come in and close these dinosours down. No baby milk formulae, bread nearly out of date, close for 2 hours in the afternoon, only one size of nappies etc. etc. No fresh meat (and no butcher in the village)


----------



## ClubMan (15 Aug 2005)

There's a business opportunity for some enterprising person so.


----------



## CCOVICH (15 Aug 2005)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> Two comments in relation to the above
> One- this will not make the papers or radio or tv in the way if sufficient people had sent nappies, it would have.
> Two- why don't you start this petition, or send an e-mail, because the more consumers do object, in whatever way, the better.


 
Here here.  How many people protested when McDowell wanted to send that LC student back to Nigeria?  I'd say less than 700, but because they were kids, and the school principle kicked up a fuss, the media got on side, and the politicians were forced to back down.  PR stunts are frequently the only way to get to politicans if you don't have their ear. (See Ryanair)

Fair play to Eddie for a new idea-petitions are nothing new, but if you think it's a good idea, you start it-I'll galdly sign it, as I'm sure most of the contributors to AAM would.  Then we can sit back and wait for action from Micheal.

There was nothing 'dignified' about the publicans lobbying on the cafe bar issue, why should consumers take the high road when trying to get the Groceries Order repealed?

I don't see anything 'wrong' with Eddie using tactics that are designed to appeal to Joe Soap.  It's Joe Soap who  suffers most at the hands of rip off prices for essentials such as nappies etc.  Besides, TV is dominated by programs that appeal to Joe Soap, why should this type of program be any different?


----------



## daltonr (15 Aug 2005)

and if that village is anything like Trim the business opportunity will be blocked by local councillors.

Demand alone does not create a business opportunity. You also have to beat the system.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Aug 2005)

I thought that the issues with the _Trim _counsellors were eventually circumvented?


----------



## MissRibena (15 Aug 2005)

Maybe you are right and the crude PR stunt will work out far better than (say) 100,000 signatures to a petition.   My point was that Eddie had a captive audience in half a million viewers and I think he could have chosen his mode of protest better to maximise the response.   

I don't object to Eddie looking to get a majority motivated by targetting working class/low income/less educated/non-middle/upper class people (or whoever Ronan means) by simplyfing arguments to be succinct.  That's fine by me.  By all means get the Sun or the Mirror and as many tabloids and broadsheets you can behind your campaign (like the Iraq war protests in the UK) but make an intelligent point intelligently by appealing to as many as you can.  If the ratio of viewers to activists in this case is right and the AAM senders are representative, then Eddie has failed to motivate his target audience, no matter how you look at it.  

If you guys are right though, does that not just raise more questions.  If it's just a matter of a few people making an outrageous or comical statement/gesture to make change happen, rather than a well-constructed large-scale protest, where are we headed in a democracy?  Although, given our government you can find yourself in depressing territory if you start examining the state of democracy here (something closer to my heart than the rip-off stuff).

Maybe only 700 nappies were sent because rather than being apathetic, most people just don't "feel" that ripped-off. 

Rebecca


----------



## Humpback (15 Aug 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> and if that village is anything like Trim the business opportunity will be blocked by local councillors.


 
In yesterdays Sunday Times, in a piece by Sarah Carey.

*Hobbs lauds a hollow victory*

_Eddie Hobbs’s entertaining new programme, Rip Off Republic, aired on RTE1 last Monday night. In evangelical style, his audience shouted approval to their preacher’s revelations that they were victims of anti-competitive practices. The excitement reached fever pitch when Mags McGivern recounted how Meath county council refused planning permission for a Lidl store on the outskirts of Trim in June 2003. According to Eddie, she and her friends collected a petition of 5,000 signatures, which forced the council to change its policy and everyone lived happily ever after. It’s a rousing story — but as far as I know, the council refused permission because the site was not zoned for large-scale shopping. Planners asked the retailer to move into a new town-centre development and, in the meantime, councillors proposed rezoning. But before they could complete the process, Lidl appealed to An Bord Pleanala, which granted permission, overturning the earlier rejection. If that’s the case, then I can’t see how the petition served any purpose whatsoever. Still, I’ll keep mum — who wants to be a party pooper?_


----------



## Humpback (15 Aug 2005)

MissRibena said:
			
		

> Maybe only 700 nappies were sent because rather than being apathetic, most people just don't "feel" that ripped-off.


 
I personally believe that this is definitely the case. Despite all the talk (and it's just talk as we've seen), Irish consumers don't feel strongly enough about how much money they're spending to feel hard done by.

I would actually venture to guess, that when it comes to most day to day expenditure that people don't actually know how much they're spending on a loaf of bread, a pint of milk, a packet of nappies etc etc.


----------



## Vanilla (15 Aug 2005)

Must be just me- I did actually think Eddie made intelligent points intelligently. I didn't feel he was overly simplistic either. In fact at one point I thought he wasn't being simplistic enough. I am getting seriously worried about the state of my brain now.


----------



## shnaek (15 Aug 2005)

I cannot vouch for how 'Irish people' feel, but I do know that the vast majority of my friends find Ireland very expensive. Anyone that I know who has gone on foreign holidays this summer has remarked on how cheap it is to holiday abroad. Most have come back with money in their pocket that they had expected to spend. 

I say fair play to Eddie - he's standing up and putting himself in a position where he will be criticised and dirt dug up about him. The fact is that he is trying; and seeing as how I agree with his general arguments then I am happy to support him.


----------



## Betsy Og (15 Aug 2005)

Nothing wrong in making a clear argument, I think Eddie's simplistic approach served to highlight some of the issues rather more pointedly that a Moore McDowell type debate which, rigorous and all as it might be, might be so qualified and complex as to lose any message.

If we're being fed simplistic "low tax economy" type hype, who not retaliate with some simplistic "rip-off Republic" hype, and once we've goaded them (i.e. government, IBEC, RGDATA etc.) into a debate then maybe the truth will be hammered out in the middle and the consumer will make some gains. 

Coming to the table as the reasonable, balanced man isnt always the way to spark the debate or get results, so fair play to Eddie for being the agitator.

Is Eddie's style the new John Hume "single transferable speech" - not that I criticise either of them - theres only so many ways to package commonsense.


----------



## Teabag (15 Aug 2005)

I must be a bit simple but I thought the nappy 'stunt' had its merits. 

In fairness, we have been ripped off for years and I haven't seen any petitions or any other kinds of public protests. I would certainly sign a petition or take part in a protest.

The fact is that Eddie provided the first mechanism whereby I felt I could vent my frustration and I jumped at the chance.


----------



## ixus (15 Aug 2005)

I would like to have seen Eddie give a breakdown of what portion of a 300K / 400K house goes to the developers,government,solicitors etc

I think that would have been very interesting.

I hadn't realised there were so few cement manufacturers in the country, really thought that would be more competitive.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Aug 2005)

ixus said:
			
		

> I would like to have seen Eddie give a breakdown of what portion of a 300K / 400K house goes to the developers,government,solicitors etc


A huge portion of such a second hand house bought in the last decade would go to the owner in terms of capital appreciation profit which is tax free for owner occupiers!


----------

