allanb

RH wrote: "It depends how you look at it - personally I wouldn't want some guy in an insurance office deciding what treatment I get…" He doesn't decide what treatment you get – he only decides what treatment the insurer will pay for. And that's what happens in France, except that instead of a guy in an insurance office it's a guy in the Assurance Maladie office. But the insurance office is trying to maximise the company's profit, which is why there are so many limits and exceptions in the policy. One of the worst examples is the exclusion for pre-existing conditions, which means that if you have a serious condition and then lose your job, and you're lucky enough to find another one, you're still left with no cover for that condition. And you can't really blame the insurance company: why should they accept a "risk" which in fact has already happened? It would be like forcing them to issue a new policy on your house when the fire has already started. In my opinion this problem alone is just about enough to justify some kind of universal health cover funded mainly by the state.

I couldn't get the "quote" to work, but this is in reply to Hoddy's question (does the cover go on for ever if you lose your job?). I'm fairly sure that it doesn't. There is a "continuation of benefits" law that requires insurers to continue the cover for a certain time, but not for ever. In any case, even if the cover doesn't expire, there are typically annual or lifetime limits on the amount payable.

Mr C de L : if you're not working but you have good health insurance, then presumably either a former employer is paying for it, or you're rich enough to buy your own. In either case, you're lucky. There are tens of millions of people in the USA who aren't. I don't like everything about Obamacare, but in the absence of Obamacare or something like it, those people live with the risk of serious illness for which the only available treatment (unless they are so poor that they qualify for Medicaid) would be what they can get from a visit to the emergency room. And even the lucky ones, who have good health cover because of their employment, are permanently in danger of losing it. I think this is disgraceful in one of the world's richest countries, and I give Obama credit for trying to do something about it.

It's a pity, but I think that "god-fearing and gullible" is a fair description of a large part of the population of the USA.

I'm going to be in the USA for a few weeks and I'd like to know whether I will be able to use a European mobile phone, assuming that I buy a suitable SIM card when I get there. There are two phones I could take: a Samsung C520 and a Motorola Blue Razr V3.  They're both fairly old, but they work well enough in France. Any advice will be appreciated.

Idun, I don't know exactly what your point is, but the official name in France (maybe not in the whole of Euroland) is centime.  Here is a quotation from the code monétaire, easily found on Wikipedia and elsewhere: "la monnaie de la France est l'euro. Un euro est divisé en cent centimes."  And in my experience French people use centime(s) in ordinary speech.  It should be easy to test: for instance, ask a French friend "La moitié d'un euro, c'est combien?" I think he'll probably say "cinquante centimes" – probably with a pitying look, as if you couldn't divide by two. I agree with your view of French numbers.  But where the unit of money is concerned, it surely makes sense not to use a word that sounds exactly the same as 100 (not to mention sans, sent, and sang).

Thanks for the replies.  I now know that the French name is tabouret roulant, and they're widely available but evidently about 50% more expensive in France than in the UK – a common experience, apparently.

I'm looking for a stool with spring-loaded wheels, which rolls around easily when not loaded, but which settles down firmly when you stand on it.   Does anyone know where I can buy one? I know at least two supermarkets where they have these for the use of employees.  But they don't sell them and they couldn't tell me where to find one.   

I wish I could suggest something else, but I can't.  If you ever find the solution, I'd be interested to know what it is.

I've made several transfers on line from the Banque Postale to other European countries (including the UK), but not using "transferts internationaux".  I use the "virements et prélèvements" option.  I've never had a problem with an IBAN, but the system requires a BIC as well, and I expect there would be a problem if the BIC didn't match the relevant part of the IBAN.  Could this be the problem?  Although I've never used the "transferts internationaux" service, I had a look at it and it seems that it's intended for sending cash to countries outside SEPA, mostly in Africa.  It lists the countries for which the service is available; there are about twenty of them and the list begins "Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon…" I wonder if there's some confusion between the two services.  On the other hand, if that was the problem, the "helpies" should have known. 

[quote user="Alex H"]Well if you can't see what's at the side of the road, perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all?[/quote] Interesting point.  You could say the same about many other warning signs, like "virage" (if you can't see that there's a bend in the road, perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all?) I'm not entirely joking here.  I sometimes wonder whether too many warning signs make people dependent on warning signs.

I don't have any personal knowledge of this company.  However, I've seen discussion on a French forum from which it seems that you are not alone.  There's a fair amount of consumer protection in France if you can find it.  There is a government agency called the DDPP (Direction Départementale de la Protection des Populations) which has apparently opened a file on this company in response to complaints.  On this site: http://www.finances.gouv.fr/directions_services/dgccrf/contact_ddpp.htm – you should be able to find contact information for the DDPP in your area, including an e-mail address.  I don't have any experience of them either, but it might be worth your while to tell them what happened and ask if they can help.  Good luck.

[quote user="Pickles"]WHAT? ME? KIND TO A splutter splutter splutter cough cough "ADVISOR"? [/quote] Sorry, I assumed you were naturally kind and just couldn't help it. But I know how you feel.  I was once nice to a management consultant, and I worried about it for weeks afterwards.

[quote user="Pickles"]In the light of the new info on timing given by the OP, I reckon the OP was sold a CHF loan towards the end of the period when it might have been reasonable to consider such a thing if one were happy with the risks…[/quote] With respect, Pickles, I think you're being too kind to the OP's adviser.  At any time, if interest on CHF is lower than interest on another currency, it means that the market expects CHF to get more expensive against that currency.  It must be so; if it wasn't, then corporate treasurers everywhere would be scrambling to borrow CHF.  Any decent financial adviser would know that and would make sure that his client understood it.  Of course, what "the market" predicts will not necessarily happen; but it's the best available indicator of the risk.  All this discussion is too late to help the OP, unfortunately.  But maybe it will help some other borrower to avoid falling into the clutches of a so-called currency expert.

To answer your question, I don't imagine it's widespread because I haven't heard of banks encouraging people to do this.  It's difficult to comment without knowing the circumstances, but if someone advised you to take a foreign-currency loan without giving some very solid reasons, I would say you got bad advice. If your income is in euros and you took a Swiss franc loan in the hope of saving some interest, then it was a gamble.  Any "plan" to cover the currency fluctuations would have been expensive: the probability is that it would have more or less wiped out the interest savings. A loan in Swiss francs would make sense if you had Swiss franc income to cover the repayments – but then I don't see why you would have a "huge problem." PS: I've just seen Pickles' post, which says it all.  The only thing I would add is to emphasize the definite link between interest rates and forward exchange rates: the hedging products certainly exist, and they can be used to limit risk, but they will probably cost you money unless (a) you think you know better than the market, and (b) you are willing to bet on it.

My money would be on portail.  We have a gate that rolls across the driveway (i.e. it doesn't swing on hinges) and that was the word used by the man who fitted it.

Everything Nigel Farage said made sense to me.  But I think Idun is wrong to blame the ECB: it's only doing what its owners tell it to do.   

I would expect them to pay if the risk was covered by the contract; not if it wasn't.

My insurance is with Mutuelle de Poitiers and it also has an extension for the pool.  I don't appear to have any cover against damage from an animal (I admit I hadn't thought about it until I read your post). I would guess that if damage was done by a domestic or farm animal, I – and probably you – would be able to recover damages from the owner or his insurer, assuming that he could be identified.  But if it was something like a wild boar, I think we would be out of luck.

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="allanb"]I can imagine the outcry in the British press if a French rider had pulled the same trick.[/quote] Nothing wrong with what went on. Check the rules.[/quote]It wasn't "wrong" in the sense of being against the rules.  But fair play isn't always the same as legal play; there is such a thing as using the rules unfairly, and I think that's what happened here. Anyway, Norman's comment was about the reaction of the French press, and my point was simply that if things had been reversed the British press would probably have reacted in a similar way. Here's a question: if we agree that the purpose of the rule is reasonable, could it be rewritten so as to prevent the abuse?

Mmm...  I can imagine the outcry in the British press if a French rider had pulled the same trick.

[quote user="scragend"]Clarkson's account wasn't actually hacked as such - in that no one gained access to his online banking. I think what actually happened was that somebody just filled in a Direct Debit form for the charity (possibly on their web site so that there would be no need for a signature) and put his bank details on it.[/quote] Interesting comment.  I think there's something odd about the Clarkson story.  I don't have any recent experience of direct debits in the UK, but if money was taken without some kind of authority from Clarkson himself, he should have been able to get it back from the bank.  I wonder whether he tried? There are several countries (e.g. Germany, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg) where people cheerfully disclose their bank account details, on letterheadings and invoices for example, as a normal way of getting paid.  I lived under that system for twelve years and I never heard of any problem. By the way, Clarkson would have been able to get his money back in France – something that the banks don't always tell you.  

[quote user="Daft Doctor"]Has anyone had previous recent experience of this kind of thing...?[/quote] Yes, and not only from French banks.  We have had three requests of this kind from UK banks within the last 6 months.  [quote]...and are we obliged to comply?[/quote] Yes and no.  I think all banks are subject to laws arising from European directives on tax evasion and money laundering.  So we probably have to provide enough information to allow them to comply with such laws. But I believe the banks put their own interpretation on the regulations, and some of their specific requirements are unrealistic or downright silly.  For instance, to provide one of their "essential" signed statements we would have had to make a round trip of a couple of hundred km to see the nearest British consul.  And on that particular one, they gave way: I said I wasn't going to do it, and invited them to close the account if they were sufficiently unhappy.  (They didn't.) I believe that some banks over-react to regulations by writing ludicrously detailed "requirements" and not giving their employees authority to use some common sense.   If you have a genuine problem – like being asked to provide a document that doesn't exist (which also happened to us) – you can probably resist, especially if you're willing to fight your way one or two levels up the chain of command.

[quote user="NormanH"]...a pet hatred of mine is two nouns banged together into a compound rather than using a phrase Justice Minister instead of Minister of Justice). But I wander....[/quote] I think you're fighting a losing battle there, Norman.  Banging nouns together without a preposition is standard English, surely: government spokesman, restaurant manager, sales director, cherry orchard, safety belt, vegetable soup...

[quote user="bixy"] I note that anyone selling a second home must declare the plus value on their tax return. How can a non-resident do this, since he/she will not complete a French tax return?[/quote] It's quite possible that someone who is fiscally resident in one country, and therefore has to file a tax declaration there, may have to declare some things in another country also.  I think that ownership of property is a possible reason, although it isn't the only one.