The Government had vowed it would not cost the nation more than that. Hence, if several individuals will end up getting much more than the present state payout of ?113.10, surely the extra money would have to come from other sources.

But the announcement has been consistently clear: Anyone who has paid the amount required by the National Insurance of 35 years of contributions will receive a weekly pension of?155. However, our evaluation of the small print on the new flat-rate has shown this to be untrue.

About 80% of over-50-year-old citizens who have faithfully paid their regular National Contributions all their life will end up receiving below ?155 each week.

Why? Because at a certain time they were in a final-salary program and were contracted out of the State Second Pension? a plan that permitted employees to jack-up their state retirement payout. Since they chose out of these extra payments, workers were allowed to pay a lower rate of National Insurance contributions of 10.6% and not 12%.

The justification from the present Government is that these workers should not receive or claim the new higher basic state retirement pay for having paid lower tax then. This is in spite of the fact that, in the present administration, they would have been eligible for the full amount of basic state pension.

It certainly is a frustrating development for many. How can the Government expect people to become responsible retirement planners if at this late period retirees are unsure as to how much they will actually receive?

And that does not take into account the complication that will ensue when the inflation-related increases in guaranteed minimum retirement income will be removed. For many years, the Government has covered these increases; but it has now turned around by saying that it was only a misunderstanding, not a firm commitment.

However, many official declarations have shown that this is not really the case. The latest official reports state that the Department for Work and Pensions is correcting this history ? and extricating these files from the Parliamentary archives.

A rather cunning way of denying a pension vow: Pretend it never really happened. These amendments to the national pension are an unfair decision to impose upon hopeful people who will be disenfranchised of their dreams during their expected life of retirement.

So complex is the equation that even the Department for Work and Pensions is not certain what contracted-out employees will receive.

Moreover, people are being punished for a judgment they took twenty or thirty years ago ? a step which, in general, was done by someone else, since many company final-salary plans involuntarily contracted workers out of the state second pension.

Looking in from the outside, it appears just to decrease the payments of those who have not contributed the entire rate of National Insurance. But this is not a case of getting something for nothing. By opting to pay the lower rate, they were surrendering their right to receive the state second pension.

It used to be that paying lower tax then was considered commendable for it ended up reducing burden on the state. Today, however, it is more like an insult. And you could end up being penalised.

Road to hell

Many of my regular readers know how holiday car rental drives me round the bend. I have never even had a scratch on my knee — but every booking has been with a nasty incident.

I have gotten surprising extra fees charged after dropping off the car, arguments about fuel costs, frustrating late charges for child seats and, on one especially unforgettable event, a weird side-trip into an Italian city with a car-hire firm’s agent to put an additional 90 cents of gas into a vehicle.

Incredibly, trouble for my booking this year has begun earlier than I expected — I noticed it when I received my credit-card statement.

I found out that in spite of the rental price of my France trip later this year being quoted in pounds at each step during the booking procedure through Holidayautos, I was finally billed in euros. This caused me to get a 2.99 per cent currency conversion charge on my credit card.

Alright, it was just almost £7; yet these things could have been avoided in principle — if I had known they will bill me in foreign currency, I could have used another card that did not charge me.

I told the company about it and Holidayautos readily refunded the money and has since revamped its website to make sure their clients customers can book in any currency they desire.

Unfortunately, that positive kind of customer care is uncommon. Invariably, problems about car rental companies cram our mailbox yearly. Almost always, the reason is that someone has been unknowingly charged without any valid rationale given by the firm.

Our ten tips to assist you escape being scammed should guarantee a detour from as many disastrous obstacles as possible. What a disgrace that the inexcusable service of many of these companies can make even the simplest rental into a catastrophe.

Wild West

I just arrived from America, where their lax security concerning credit cards never fails to confound me.

The U.S. is one the few of the world’s nations that does not regularly utilize PIN and chip.

Yet, unbelievably, 47% of the world’s credit-card-related fraud crimes occur in that place.

Counting all the times I made card transactions throughout our trip (and Mrs C. made sure we could have many), only once did I get to use my PIN.

For every other expense, I signed on an electronic gadget — and if you have used one of those, you know it is an almost impossible task to do.

Sometimes, clerks verified if the signature matched the one on my card, and even asked for an ID card; but usually all I managed to make was a chicken-scratch of a signature that was not in any way similar to my signature.

Again, the U.S. is planning to introduce chip and PIN; however, plans apparently stalled over the cost.

Yet in 2012, card firms lost a staggering £2 billion while stores lost another £1.1 billion due to card fraud.

The anxiety that majority of people in the U.S. have regarding PIN and chip is similar to that which welcomed their appearance in Britain ten years earlier.

But considering the magnitude of the losses to fraud, implementing the security measure is an expense worth incurring.