Desperate times call for desperate measures, and that certainly seems like an apt description for a new scheme backed by 15 local councils to offer first-time buyers assistance with the deposit required to buy a house.

The intention is for local authorities to help those who would be able to meet the monthly repayment costs on a mortgage but struggle to raise the vast sums that are now required for a deposit.

Under the plan, local authorities could contribute up to 20% of the cost of a property, with buyers putting down just 5%. The money is incorporated into a mortgage provided by Lloyds TSB, with monthly repayments servicing both aspects of the debt.

Buyers will be able to take out a three-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 5.09% with an £895 fee or 5.79% with no fee – slightly cheaper than Lloyds TSB’s 90% loan rate – and, unlike shared ownership, would purchase the entire property. The bank intends to offer mortgages of up to £350,000 – theoretically meaning councils could pay as much as £70,000 for a 20% deposit – although in reality councils are likely to cap the amount they are prepared to loan.

It’s a radical and novel idea, which could offer a viable option for first-time buyers who currently feel a million miles away from being able to buy their own place, as well as providing a huge boost to local housing markets and the construction industry.

Whether this is the best use of local council funds at a time when the spending axe is wreaking havoc throughout the public sector is another question, and the move also carries a hefty element of risk for local authorities, which could stand to lose out should properties be repossessed at a time when prices have tumbled. Desperate measures indeed.

The price of a quick fix

Those already on the housing ladder who are currently on standard variable rate mortgages, meanwhile, are likely to be wrestling with whether now is a good time to opt for a fixed-rate deal.

The best products on the market have long since disappeared, of course, but fixing a rate ahead of the anticipated increases in the base rate will be appealing for many, particularly those who worry about their ability to afford repayments should rates rocket.

Research by Capital Economics, however, puts this into some form of perspective, suggesting rates would have to rise to around 3.25% before fixed-rate mortgages become cheaper options than the average existing variable rate.

With inflation currently well above target and rates at record lows – three years ago 3.25% would have been regarded as pretty much as good as it was going to get – this is not beyond the realms of possibility but a variable rate is still likely to prove the more cost-effective option.

The way to look at it is that you pay a premium – as with insurance – on a fixed-rate loan which guarantees you will pay no more than that level for a set period of time. What’s right will depend on individuals’ own circumstances and attitude to risk, as well as whether they’re able to cope with the fluctuations that are an inevitable part of variable products (the clue’s in the name, I guess).

Tax write-offs

Anyone affected by the great HMRC tax farce – you know, when they announced that problems with their new system meant they’d undercharged around 1.4 million people – might be interested to know that around one in four of those who have appealed against this have had their debts cancelled.

The news was revealed in a Parliamentary answer by Treasury minister David Gauke, who confirmed that 10,000 people who HMRC claimed owed back-dated taxes have effectively had these written off.

Under the “extra-statutory concession”, which has already seen around 250,000 pensioners have their debts cleared, HMRC is forgoing money owed from those who could “reasonably have believed their tax affairs were in order”.

Those who received the tax demands but have yet to resolve the issue can still query their obligation under the concession, while those whose debts have been upheld also have the right to appeal.

Pay how you drive

The Co-Operative Insurance has provided us with a glimpse into what the future of car insurance could look like following the European Court of Justice’s recent ruling preventing the use of gender as a means of determining premiums.

For years, younger drivers have faced wildly excessive insurance premiums and the recent ruling means costs are likely to rise still further for women.

Now, though, The Co-Operative has introduced what it terms a “pay-how-you-drive” policy for 17-25-year-olds, which monitors a driver’s behaviour by recording speed and braking distances from a Smartbox fitted to the car.

The company claims this could ultimately reduce the premiums for careful drivers by around 11%, and presumably would provide an added incentive to drive sensibly, with those who regularly drive in a dangerous fashion facing higher bills.

The real problem, however, both for young drivers paying high premiums and the safety of other road users, is likely to remain in the shape of the boy-racers who often view insurance as an optional extra. Putting their cars in a box, rather than a box in their cars, might be the best solution here.

University blues

Just when students – and parents – thought it couldn’t get any worse in terms of the amount it will cost to gain a degree under the new fee system, it does.

A study by the BBC suggests some graduates could end up paying double the amount they owe under the government’s proposed regime, whereby students pay off their debts by contributing 9% of their salaries for up to 30 years, once they earn over £21,000.

The amount of interest charged will vary from matching the rate of inflation to as much as 3% over it, the research found, with higher earners facing heavier charges.

A student paying the highest rate of interest on a debt of £39,000 for a three-year course could end up paying back £83,000 in cash terms over 25 years, the BBC suggests.

It’s an unbelievably scary prospect, and one that again questions the rationale of going to university at all if you’re not going to head off into a highly lucrative career. For those who are going, the message is to keep spending under control; shaving even £5,000 off a total of £39,000 will have a big impact on earnings over an entire career.

With that being the case, then, it seems girls are likely to be in a slightly better position in the future than boys (or women and men, as they should perhaps be known).

It may come as no great surprise to learn that male students tend to spend more than female ones, and my own university experiences are still hazy enough to be able to guess where most of this goes.

Indeed, boys admit to spending an average of £76 a month in pubs and clubs compared to £46 spent by girls (and even this seems a conservative figure to me).

What is surprising, though, according to the study by the Student Loans Company (SLC), is that boys also spend more on buying clothes, eating out and even on telephone calls than their female counterparts.

In fact, it seems boys spend more on just about everything, which has led the SLC to conclude that girls are simply better at shopping around, on everything from mobile phone deals to utility contracts.

The only thing boys tend to spend less on is their rent, which, I suppose, could explain why they seem so keen to spend so much of their time down the pub.