allanb

[quote user="Will"]I think it could be more precise if it said: 1. "As a holder of a UK-issued EHIC, you do not need the card to access NHS services" 2. "Once you have moved your health cover permanently away so that the UK is no longer your competent state, you are no longer entitled to medical treatment under normal NHS rules" 3. - appears to be no longer necessary under the current system, though it still applies under (2). But in many ways the above is just as confusing as the original.[/quote] Well, I think your versions of 1 and 2 would be an improvement. But I'm still puzzled by nº 3.  If I have a UK-issued EHIC, and I'm resident in France, and I'm travelling in a third country (Spain, Latvia...) what then?  If I can't use my UK-issued EHIC, what can I use?  It's the only one I've got. Could it be the word "abroad" that's confusing the issue?  If it said - You will also no longer be entitled to use your UK-issued EHIC to access healthcare in your country of residence - that would be understandable.

[quote user="velcorin"]Pensions are future obligations, not debts.[/quote]With respect, I think that's just word play.  Every company is required to show the estimated value of future pension obligations as a liability in its balance sheet.  If it didn't, it would be falsely stating its financial position, and its financial director would probably get fired. I've never understood why a government shouldn't be subject to the same rule.  And the government's financial director is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Thank you for the good news.  What you say makes sense.  It does mean, however, that all three of the statements I quoted from the NHS letter and website - (1) The EHIC card does not provide entitlement to NHS services. (2) ... once you have moved permanently away from the UK you are no longer entitled to medical treatment under normal NHS rules. (3) You will also no longer be entitled to use your UK-issued EHIC to access healthcare abroad. - are simply wrong. This is, to say the least, a bit surprising.  It's not all that unusual to get misleading information from official sources, but three out of three is a fairly high rubbish ratio. Is it just a matter of words?  E.g. does the first one really mean "the EHIC card does not provide entitlement to NHS services, but don't worry, you will get them anyway"?

I am trying to make an intelligent decision about medical insurance for travel in Europe. My wife and I are British citizens resident in France, and we each have a carte vitale.  This year, as instructed, we have applied for, and received, EHICs issued in the UK, replacing those previously issued by the CPAM in France. I am now having difficulty in understanding what medical insurance we have (a) if we visit the UK, and (b) if we visit an EEA country other than the UK or France.  (While we are in France, I presume the EHIC is irrelevant.) The letter that came with our shiny new EHICs includes this - The EHIC card does not provide entitlement to NHS services. - and the NHS information website says - The NHS is a residence-based healthcare system. Therefore, once you have moved permanently away from the UK you are no longer entitled to medical treatment under normal NHS rules. So my first question is: what (if any) medical treatment are we entitled to in the UK when we are there on a visit, armed with our EHICs? Secondly: the NHS website says - You will also no longer be entitled to use your UK-issued EHIC to access healthcare abroad. So what does the new EHIC do for us if we are visiting (say) Spain or Latvia? I hope somebody knows the answers.  I know that there's a previous long thread on the topic, but it died out in February and I don't think it came to a clear conclusion.

[quote user="Swissie"]What would happen if the light was poor, or the sun in your eyes - in the case of a door left open onto the road? [/quote]Swissie, I'm sorry to say this, but I think that's a terrible principle.  "What would happen if the light was poor, or the sun in your eyes" and you drove into a child, or somebody crossing the road in a wheelchair? Do you think that if the light is poor, or the sun is in your eyes, you just keep driving and hope? No. If you can't see, you STOP. 

You don't say which is your principal residence, but for what it's worth, my French policy says this: - the house is insured regardless of whether it's occupied; - if it's my primary residence, some categories of contents (basically, objects of value) are not insured while it's unoccupied, if it's unoccupied for more than 90 days in any year; - if it's my secondary residence, those same contents are not insured whenever the house is unoccupied. The premium is based on a certain level of protection which is supposed to be put in place (e.g. shutters closed and doors locked) during any absence of more than 24 hours.  If we fail to do this, and if the loss can be attributed to our failure, the insurance is still valid, but any payout will be reduced by 50%. Policies vary, of course, but as far as I know mine is fairly typical, so this may give you an idea of what to expect.   

This site  http://www.travaux.com/dossier/tva.html  says that the 5,5% rate applies until 31 December 2010.  I don't think it's clear whether it actually ends on that date.

Will: thank you.  Just for interest (though it doesn't apply in this case): will the M.I.B. get involved if the other party may be insured but you can't find him - e.g. if he hits you and drives off without stopping, or if you go to your car and find it damaged?  It sounds as though they will.

[quote user="Will"]... and the insured will have to seek recompense himself from the other party, for which he may or (probably) may not get any assistance from his own insurer.[/quote]Fortunately I haven't (yet?) been in this situation, but isn't this one of the purposes of the various national Motor Insurance Bureaux?  Here is a statement from an EU information website: If you are the victim of a car accident in another country, you will be indemnified in accordance with the liability and compensation rules in force in that country and not with those in your country of habitual residence. You have several choices as to where to submit your claim for compensation:     ▪    to the foreign insurer of the party liable; or     ▪    to the green card bureau of the country in which the accident occurred; or     ▪    to the claims agent appointed to represent the foreign insurer of the party liable in your country of residence. This option gives you the advantage of settling the claim in your own language. In all these cases, you must be given a reply to all the points made in your claim within three months, stating the reasons. If the insurer of the party liable has no claims agent in your country or you have not received a reply, stating the reasons, within three months of your request, you have the right to contact the national compensation body in your country. The compensation body has to take action and provide you with a reply and reasons within two months. This was found here: http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/living/car/insurance/index_en.html If it means what it says, it looks like a feasible course of action for anyone who has suffered uninsured damage caused by another driver. 

[quote user="Sc"]Nomoss, Will, in our guest's case, no green card meant no comprehensive insurance in France...[/quote]I know I am repeating what has been said many times before, but: The green card has nothing, nothing whatever, to do with any insurance coverage except the legal minimum.  To anyone who doubts this: please read what it says on the green card.  Read it, read it. If your guest had accidental damage insurance, extended to Europe, he has a valid claim against his insurer.  Conversely, if he didn't, the green card wouldn't do anything to help him.  

You may jest.  But why else do people ask on a forum whether their insurance covers something?   If you do a bit of browsing I think you'll find many questions like "does French insurance cover XXX?" - to which, very often, the only useful answer is "nobody on the forum knows; look at your policy, or ask your broker." 

[quote user="Carole"] Pacifica have said that it is ok to drive in the UK on their car insurance, I presume that is correct.[/quote] It depends what you, or they, mean by "OK". If you have a valid French motor policy you can certainly legally drive in the UK, i.e. you automatically have the legally required liability insurance.  This is guaranteed by international agreement.  (But make sure you carry your insurance certificate as evidence that the policy exists.) As for the other kinds of cover that are not legally required (e.g. loss, accidental damage, theft, breakdown, etc) you can only find this out by asking Pacifica, or by reading your policy.  Policies are not all the same.  

Thank you.

Thanks for all the replies. The 40-day residence may be the problem.  I understand that the young lady has a permanent job in the UK.  Still, it seems there may be some room for negotiation if the mayor is flexible.  I'll pass on the information.

The daughter of some friends of ours is about to get married, and would like the ceremony to take place in the local commune here in France, where she and her parents have many friends.   Her parents, originally British, have lived here for many years and are now French citizens.  She was born in the commune and spent her childhood here, but moved to the UK as an adult and is now resident there; she is still a UK national. The local mayor says he doesn't think she can be married here. A search produced the following statement on a legal advice website:   Le mariage devant l’officier de l’état civil suppose que l’un des futurs conjoints ait un domicile ou une résidence dans le ressort de compétence de cet officier. A défaut, le mariage ne peut être célébré en France. I know, roughly, the difference between "domicile" and "residence" in English terminology, but I suspect that it's not the same in French. I don't think there's any doubt that she doesn't have une résidence here; the question is what is meant by un domicile.  Does anyone know whether the meaning of domicile could properly include her situation?  In other words, does she have any good reason to oppose the mayor's opinion?

Non-profit associations in France are governed by a law of 1901, which does have requirements about annual financial reports, but as far as I know doesn't contain anything about procedure on handing over to another treasurer. When you became treasurer, did your predecessor provide you with any kind of financial statement?  If he did, and you can provide a list of receipts and payments since the date you took over, together with a statement of all the assets and liabilities you are aware of at the date of your resignation, you should have nothing to worry about.  Hand it all over to your successor (or the President) together with any relevant documents you have, the most important being bank statements. Then relax.  Gardening clubs are not high on the list of targets for investigation. Unless your gardening club was actually a hedge fund?  (Pun) 

[quote user="Clarkkent"]I think that where everything is concentrated on "the bottom line", capitalism red in tooth and claw is as ruthless as Stalinism or Maoism.[/quote]A crucial difference is that in a capitalist system there is usually also a legal system, and if a capitalist harms you, you can take action to recover damages.  The capitalist knows this, which gives him an incentive to be careful. If you are harmed by a state-run operation under Stalinism or Maoism, you're out of luck. There are many things wrong with tort law, especially in the USA, but I think we are better off with it than we would be without it.  

[quote user="g8vkv"]ROUE: Montage inadapté du pneumatique ARD ARG PNEUMATIQUE: Usure irrégulière ARD ARG[/quote] These phrases mean that the tyres are (a) badly fitted, and (b) unevenly worn.  Obviously these two things could be connected. They don't mean that the tyres are the wrong size or rating for the car.

[quote user="JohnRoss"]It depends where you look...[/quote]It does indeed.  Until the tax service gets its act together, it will continue to be a bit of a lottery; if your local tax office (or the central office) gives you a rate that's better than the legal method or a "real" average, you're laughing. I suspect that this question is too unimportant to justify a lot of effort by the tax authorities, so it just gets delegated to minor officials in the various offices, some of whom obviously don't understand either statistics or foreign exchange.  But as long as it's in your favour, and they put it in writing, why not take advantage of it? 

[quote user="Deauville"]My understanding is that any second hand vehicle being sold must have a CT valid for at least 6 months, mine has 12 months to run...[/quote]No, I think you are required to give the buyer a CT not more than 6 months old, which is different.  If yours has only 12 months to run, it must be about 12 months old - so you can't legally sell the car (except to a dealer) without getting another one done.

[quote user="Poolguy"]Aquacheck is not much better than the drop test which is actually testing the wrong value (total chlor) you need Free Chlor... Don't use the drops anymore, to get Cyanuric acid you need to purchase a test that will give you the facility; Aquacheck doesn't do it but Scuba + does.[/quote] I'm trying to convince myself that I don't really need to spend £100+ to find out what I need to know. I have bought an Aquachek kit which uses test strips.  It really is spelled like that, without the second 'c' - I presume that we're talking about the same manufacturer: Hach Company from Elkhart, Indiana.  It cost me less than €10, IIRC.  It claims to measure 4 things: free chlorine and cyanuric acid, mentioned by Poolguy, and also pH and total alkalinity. Now I can understand that colour strips may be less convenient and less accurate than something with a digital readout, for instance.  But does that really mean that they are useless?  Is the Hach Company lying when it says that the kit measures those four things? Or is Aquachek something different from Aquacheck?   I'm confused.

[quote user="gyn_paul"]... and the official exchange rate for calculating tax is : £1 = 1E12 or 1E = £0.6999. (I know... didn't make sense to me either.... why isn't it £0.88?) [/quote] Given the amount of time and space that's wasted on this topic every year, it should be a punishable offence (a public flogging would be suitable, I think) to say that so-and-so is the "official" rate without saying where it came from.

I'm sure Parsnips is right about taking the "disclosure" option and having the interest paid gross.  When I opened a Jersey savings account a few years ago, the bank sent me the disclosure form without waiting for me to ask. But as long as Gastines' friend hasn't done this, and tax has been deducted in Jersey, doesn't the interest fall within the "directive épargne" instruction - i.e. shouldn't he report it net on 2047, 2B and line BG, and get some relief by showing the credit at 25%, as shown in the last line of the credit percentage table? I'm not at all sure about this, but I've always understood that it's what the "directive épargne" bit refers to.  If it's wrong, I trust that somebody will say so.

[quote user="suein56"]Only the CSG + PSCA payments seem to be allowable at 50% for the following year.[/quote] In fact I think it's only the CSG that gets you the deduction.  The CSG is 8.2% on certain income, and the deduction (in the following year) is 5.8% of the same income.  (At least, that's been true in my case for the last two years - since I found those rates and checked the numbers.) If it's generally true, you could simply say that the deduction is about 71% of the CSG. 

[quote user="pachapapa"]Frankly I fail to understand why people in practice persist in using CDs...[/quote] Speaking for myself: because I have a CD player in my car.