There may be some here able to help the OFT with the info they seek
The OFT has launched a call for evidence on remote communities. The purpose of this is to seek the views of residents in remote communities to improve the OFT's understanding of how remoteness affects both consumers and businesses.
The prices of many goods and services are frequently higher in remote communities and access to key services such as shops, banks and public transport can be limited. Fuel prices, in particular, are a common cause for concern given that distance affects costs of distribution. Online purchasing may expand opportunities for broader choice and quality, but we also recognise that delivery can be problematic or costly. In other circumstances variety of choice may be restricted or the quality of goods compromised.
I went to a remote community once, in the morning when we arrived everything in the shop was extremely cheap a bottle of Bacardi or Vodka was just £3, tinned foods were as cheap as any Main UK Asda, but that changed when the locals realised that they had outsiders in the town and by the afternoon a bottle of Whiskey had risen to £36, most tinned goods and goodies had been removed from the shelves and hidden and the local pub put us a notice to say "locals only".
A nice warm welcome we thought :sad:
The cost of living in this remote district is incredibly cheap.
Representatives from the Office of Fair Trading met with residents in Kinlochewe, Wester Ross as the cost of fuel, food and delivery charges came under scrutiny.
The picturesque village of Kinlochewe in Wester Ross is popular with visitors, but people living there feel they're penalised by a higher cost of living than other parts of the UK.
It is thought that people living in remote or rural areas can pay up to £40 a month more than those in the towns, with vital items such as fuel and food at the top of the list of more expensive goods.
The Office of Fair Trading is on a fact-finding mission to seven rural locations across the UK. The visit to Kinlochewe was the only stop in mainland Scotland.
In two weeks the investigators will visit Shetland, before findings are published in the summer.
This was an interesting report when it came out;
A team from Loughborough University that calculates the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's minimum income standard index carried out the research for the CRC.
This index is based on what items people think households need to be able to afford to achieve a minimum acceptable living standard.
The report found that, with low pay more common in rural areas, many rural workers fall well short of being able to afford their essential needs.
The findings show that the more remote the area, the greater the extra costs.
According to the report, to afford a minimum standard of living a single person needs to earn at least:
£15,600 a year in a rural town;
£17,900 a year in a village;
£18,600 in a hamlet or the remote countryside.
When factors such as taxes and tax credits are taken into account, that equates to a difference with the urban figure of £14,400 in take home pay of 10-20%, researchers said.
'Wage gap'
The report also found:
A car is a significant additional cost for rural households because people said public transport is inadequate
Many rural dwellers face higher energy bills because they are not always connected to mains gas, so must use other fuels
In a hamlet, a family of four needs more per week than a similar urban family
The report's author, Dr Noel Smith, said: "We were struck by the gap between how much people would need to earn to meet these rural requirements and the level of some of the wages actually available.
"Workers in the most basic rural jobs can work very hard yet still fall well short of what they need for an acceptable standard of living."
Nicola Lloyd, executive director at the CRC, said: "Although it is now widely recognised that one in five rural households experience poverty, this is the first time we've also had reliable data to show the minimum cost of living in the countryside is higher than in the city."
I took the trouble to dig out the research paper.
Here is the link.
Now it takes some digging but essentially the scientists decided that urban dwellers didnt need a car and other groups did.
"In the UK MIS, households’ main transport needs are met through provision for bus fares and occasional taxi fares. None of the urban budgets allow for households to have a car. When considering rural MIS, most groups decided that a car was a minimum essential and the cost of running a car comprised a significant element of the budget. To address this, a method was developed for the project to calculate minimum car costs, consisting of three elements...."
This is where the bulk of the difference comes from. They added a bit for extra fuel costs and totally ignored, from what I can see the cost of tradesmen and services (which I find significantly cheaper).
Yet more bad science from a pressure group, glibly reported by a dreadful newspaper, to support the established and unwavering views of its readers.
Inform the OFT of your thoughts, it is open to all
Are you not gonna respond to the bollox the report is based on or do you remain convinced that rural dwellers are impoverished?
That is your interpretation. We shall see what the OT finds come the summer
Do you disagree with my description of the methodology?
I heartily agree that there is a need for good public transport.
Farmers suffering again
THE government’s purge on gas-guzzling vehicles is seriously hurting dale residents who need 4x4s for their everyday lives, a
Teesdale farming support group says.
Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services (UTASS) says “extortionate” tax hikes on 4x4 vehicles are punishing rural communities.
