Where Labour’s tax attack on your pension pot is most likely to hit… and how to protect it. Wealth guru JEFF PRESTRIDGE crunches the numbers

Rachel Reeves’s tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer has gotten off to a shaky start. Wobbly as Hartley’s Jelly. Her update on the country’s fragile public finances, delivered to the Commons six days ago, was laced with financial poison as she announced a horrific cut to the winter fuel payment that will see ten million pensioners deprived of the benefit, worth up to £300.

As a result, people of retirement age in England and Wales will only receive the benefit this winter if they are in receipt of pension credit – or a small range of other means-based benefits (the devolved governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland make their own rules).

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a devastating cut to the winter fuel payment, leaving ten million pensioners without the benefit, worth up to £300.

The announcement means that up to 1.2 million financially challenged pensioners who qualify for pension credit but don’t claim it (whether through pride, ignorance or an inability to go through the application process) will miss out. As will many who simply don’t qualify for the benefit but whose finances are severely constrained. My inbox has been flooded with readers spitting blood at Reeves’ move.

They feel pensioners, who have no representation in government, have been unfairly singled out. I spent five hours on the phone with readers who will lose their benefits. For some, the loss will put more pressure on already fragile finances. For others, it will make little difference, but they feel betrayed after Labour vehemently denied before the election that the benefit would be means-tested.

Up to 1.2 million pensioners in financial difficulty who are entitled to pension credit but do not claim it (either through pride, ignorance or an inability to complete the application process) will miss out on their entitlement.

In the first of these camps is Julia Holmes, a 69-year-old retired carer from Saltash in Cornwall. Julia, who is divorced, has already had to adjust financially to the fact that her state pension, promised at age 60, was not paid until age 66 due to the equalisation of the state pension age for men and women. Now she is losing her fuel payment.

‘You work hard for 40 years in an industry that doesn’t pay well,’ says Julia. ‘You put a little bit aside for a rainy day, you struggle to make ends meet and then this woman walks into 11 Downing Street and decides, without a shred of compassion, to make pensioners like me worse off.’

She added: ‘Politicians are so out of touch. Rachel Reeves should come to Cornwall and see for herself the hardships faced by many pensioners – some relying on food banks to get by.’

John Lloyd, from Letchworth in Hertfordshire, is in the other camp. John, 84, has been married to Anita for 62 years. He is the founder of a successful double-glazing company (Kindlelight Windows) and his retirement is supported by income from various pensions he has built up during his working life. ‘We won’t miss the payment,’ he says. ‘We live in a four-bedroom house and if things get to a crawl under this Labour government, we can always downsize.

‘But it’s the duplicity of it all. On the one hand, Labour is happy to steal from pensioners, claiming the country’s finances are in shambles. But on the other hand, it’s also happy to pay huge sums of money to public sector workers to stay in favour with the unions.’

His view is shared by many. Maggi Warner, 75, a retired personal assistant from Yate in South Gloucestershire, describes the “attack” on pensioners as “despicable”. Maggi, who is married to Barry, 78, who worked in the travel industry, says scrapping the benefit is a “cheap move”. “We pensioners need to make our voices heard in government,” she adds.

Maggi is absolutely right. Pensioners should be represented in government (Baroness Ros Altmann would be a brilliant voice).

Twenty-two organisations have written to Reeves urging him to stop the tougher winter fuel payment. Charity Independent Age has coordinated the letter and is urging pensioners to email their MP to express their anger at the measure. It is also urging them to check if they are eligible for pension credit by visiting gov.uk/pension-credit/how-to-claim.

I’m afraid Reeves has no intention of changing.

Metro is a shadow of its former self

Serious accounting errors made at Metro Bank five years ago have undermined its financial strength

Metro Bank was a force for good when it was launched 14 years ago. Yet it is now a shadow of its former self, due to serious accounting errors made five years ago that have undermined its financial strength.

Although the bank is moving closer to financial stability after securing £925m of emergency refinancing last autumn, it has come at a high price. Many of the things that set Metro apart from the rest of the high street banks have been abandoned as CEO Dan Frumkin has slashed costs.

The commitment to seven-day high street banking has disappeared, with most of the 76 branches no longer open on Saturdays or Sundays. Weekday opening hours have also been reduced, although in Metro’s defence, branches are open longer than most rivals.

It has also exited the credit card market, leaving affected customers to find a new card issuer when their accounts are closed in September. Some of the people I spoke to are irritated by Metro’s move.

In addition, customers with a personal bank account complain that they cannot go to a post office for basic banking matters, unlike customers with an account at a regular bank.

Coupled with the recent sale of £2.5bn of mortgages to NatWest, Metro is becoming something of a one-man show whose customer-focused USP (unique selling point) is rapidly diminishing.

The only bright spot is that new branches are still opening (openings in Chester and Gateshead are scheduled for late spring next year).

More importantly, Frumkin appears to have saved the bank from financial trouble. destruction.

M&S Bank has taken a dig at some credit card holders in its latest communication. The letter, dated 29 July, informs customers that interest rates will rise on 24 October – from 21.9 to 23.9 per cent on purchases and balance transfers (27.9 to 29.9 per cent on cash payments).

This contradicts the previous mailing about interest rate changes, in which cardholders were informed that interest rates would increase from 21.9 to 24.9 percent at the end of March (from 27.9 to 29.9 percent for cash).

Even Treasury Secretary Rachel Reeves, an expert at fusing numbers, couldn’t pass off an actual decline as an increase.

M&S Bank were invited to clarify matters. They asked for evidence, which I duly provided (the two letters sent to cardholder Jenny Wall in Birmingham).

It then blamed a “technical error.” As for Jenny, she’s been told she’ll get a response within five days. “Pants,” I say.

Before the base rate cut by 0.25 percent to 5 percent on Thursday, experts were divided over whether the Bank of England would hold or change, with 60 percent predicting a cut, the rest predicting no change. The disputants were right.

While interest rate cuts are not good news for savers, the cut (the first in four years) is welcome, especially if it boosts both the UK economy and the UK stock market, which did not react positively to the news.

I predicted that the base rate would remain at 5.25 per cent and that if I was wrong I would make a £50 donation to charity. The donation, topped up with gift aid, was made to Prostate Cancer UK.