BBC

Submitted

‘We have nothing to hide’

A COUPLE were shocked after a trip to their local shop saw them charged nearly £70 for a pizza.

Angela, 65, and Graham Harrington 66, went to the Broadcut Sainsburys in Fareham, Surrey, on Saturday to grab some wine and a few other items when they were handed the massive bill for more than £170.

3

3

Advertisement

3

The pair then saw a 14in veggie pizza had cost them a whopping £69.82.

The couple, both retired with 10 grandchildren, were doing a “smart shop” on Angela’s phone, but Graham said, “it wasn’t so smart”.

When they got to the checkout, they were baffled at the £170 bill.

Angela said: “We’ve only got 12 bottles of wine at £10.50 each, with a 25% discount, and a few other items which went through fine.”

A 14” deep pan veg pizza drove the price up with its £69.82 price tag. “Where that came from we’ve no idea. We would never buy a vegetarian pizza. It was really really strange”, said Angela.

She added: “We didn’t buy any pizzas whatsoever. We called the staff member over and said ‘this doesn’t seem right.’”

The staff member quickly fixed it, but “everyone was looking amazed because they don’t sell pizzas at that price,” she said.

“It seems to be the talk of Sainsbury’s now, and when we went in there again today, they said, ‘Oh, here she is’.”

Angela said the staff “were astonished” and “had no idea what could have gone wrong; there was no explanation for it”

The couple were also astonished at the pizza’s price tag, adding: “How many people is that for?”

Angela warned: “If we hadn’t have looked to check that bill or if anyone else was doing their weekly shop, they could easily have paid the bill.

“You don’t know what else could have been added to your shopping without your knowledge.

She added: “When I told friends and family they thought it was quite funny and weird.

“But I have been warning people to check their shopping before they pay for it because you don’t know what might be on there”.

Angela confirmed the event hadn’t deterred them from Sainsbury’s.

The Sun has contacted Sainsbury’s for comment.

It comes after Sainsbury’s stunned shopper once again but this time, due to the arrival of iconic Christmas food on the shelves.

Sainsbury’s shoppers couldn’t believe their eyes when it appeared that mince pies were already on sale.

They took to X, formerly known as Twitter to share their discovery.

One customer wrote in the caption: “Stock up on your mince pies (take in Sainsbury’s a few days ago, so it was actually August!!!!).”

Another shopper who also took to X, wrote: “On Sept 1 I walked into my local Sainsbury and what did I see on the shelves?

“Mince pies – freaking…minced…pies.

“Bloody hell Sainsbury’s it’s not even October yet.”

Sainsbury’s is currently selling a pack of six 320g mince pies for £1.70 online.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

In creating an opera out of Pushkin’s revered verse novel Eugene Onegin, Tchaikovsky said he had been attracted by the “everyday, simple, universally human emotions”. He shied away from a premiere in a major opera house, citing the lavish sets and stale routine that he saw in most.

There can be no worry about that here. In the Royal Opera’s new production in London, director Ted Huffman has gone for minimalism at its most extreme. For much of the evening there is nothing on the stage except for two hard-backed chairs, while a cloud of strangely immobile dry ice hangs in the air.

There can be pluses and minuses to this approach, but the minuses have won. Intimacy, so important in this opera, cannot be found on such a wide, bare stage and Huffman compounds that by having characters join in scenes where they do not belong. Tatyana dictates her letter — surely one of the most private moments in opera — to her sister. Then both of them show up uninvited for the duel at dawn.

The production’s updating is arguably less of a problem. Although Tchaikovsky was adamant that Eugene Onegin had to be set in 1820s Russia, these “everyday” people can exist in almost any period or place, the art deco chandeliers and casual, modern clothing here suggesting a time closer to the mid-20th century.

The main plus is that the Royal Opera has cast Pushkin’s young characters to the life. Kristina Mkhitaryan’s Tatyana credibly plays the naive teenager at the start and grows with elegance into the Prince’s wife in the closing scenes. Her voice is on the bright, hard side, but more than anybody else she fills this bare stage with feeling. The hushed intensity she brings to the heart of the letter scene is the high point of the performance.

Her Onegin is Gordon Bintner, who is tall enough to look down superciliously on everybody else and has mastered the most overbearing of loping gaits. As Onegin pointedly does not kill Lensky in this production, he comes across a touch more sympathetic after the duel scene. Bintner fields a lyrical baritone with beauty and resonance, and sings splendidly in the aria, but is not so imposing vocally elsewhere.

Liparit Avetisyan, familiar from Verdi roles with the Royal Opera, projects well as Lensky. Avery Amereau is the delightful Olga, not too heavy of voice, and Alison Kettlewell and Rhonda Browne are well contrasted as Madame Larina and Filipyevna. Brindley Sherratt took over at the 11th hour as Prince Gremin. Christophe Mortagne brings authentic French tones to Monsieur Triquet, but we did not need his clown alter ego haunting the action.

There have been a number of Royal Opera productions on an empty stage in recent years and their open acoustics can make life difficult for the singers. Huffman, happily, has taken note and makes sure they are at the front of the stage for anything important. This is helpful, as conductor Henrik Nánási does not spare the decibels, pushing pacing and passion to the limit.

There is a strange disjunct here. What we see is colourless, emotionally chill. What we hear from the orchestra is overwrought. Between the two, the touching story of Pushkin and Tchaikovsky is struggling to come together.

★★★☆☆

To October 14, rbo.org.uk

Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs) are a popular and convenient way to invest in mutual funds. But how do you decide how to allocate your investment across different asset classes? Enter the 70:20:10 rule, a powerful framework for asset allocation within your SIP strategy.

Understanding Asset Allocation

Asset allocation refers to the strategy of dividing your investment portfolio across different asset classes like equity, debt, and real estate (though SIPs typically focus on the first two). This helps diversify your risk and potentially improve your investment returns.

The 70:20:10 Rule Explained

The 70:20:10 rule is a simple yet effective asset allocation strategy for SIP investors. Here’s how it breaks down:

70% in Equity SIPs

This portion of your investment goes towards equity funds that invest in stocks. Equity funds offer high growth potential but also come with higher risk due to market fluctuations.

20% in Debt SIPs

This allocation goes towards debt funds that invest in bonds and fixed-income instruments. Debt funds offer lower risk and provide stability to your portfolio.

10% in High-Risk SIPs (Optional)

This is the most aggressive portion and can include investments in sectoral funds, thematic funds, or even a small allocation to gold ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). This segment has the potential for high returns but also carries significant risk.

Benefits of the 70:20:10 Rule for SIPs

Diversification & Risk Management

By allocating across asset classes, you spread your risk and potentially mitigate losses if one asset class underperforms.

Balance & Growth

The 70:20:10 mix offers a balance between potential growth from equity and stability from debt, catering to your long-term goals.

Flexibility & Customization

This rule is a starting point. You can adjust the percentages based on your risk tolerance, age, and financial goals.

Important Considerations

Risk Tolerance

Are you comfortable with market volatility? A higher risk tolerance might allow for a higher allocation to equity.

Investment Horizon

The 70:20:10 rule is generally suitable for long-term investors. As you approach your goals, you might want to increase your debt allocation for stability.

Financial Goals

Align your asset allocation with your goals. For example, a more aggressive allocation might suit a retirement plan decades away.

Beyond the 70:20:10 Rule

While the 70:20:10 rule is a valuable framework, remember:

Market Conditions

Consider current market conditions when allocating assets.

Professional Guidance

Consult a financial advisor for personalized asset allocation advice based on your unique financial profile.

SIPs and the 70:20:10 Rule: A Winning Combination

The 70:20:10 rule offers a structured approach to asset allocation within your SIP strategy. By combining this framework with the discipline and convenience of SIPs, you can potentially build a well-diversified portfolio and navigate your path towards achieving your financial goals.

Start Your SIP Journey Today!

Don’t wait! Embrace the 70:20:10 rule and the power of SIPs to embark on a confident and informed investment journey. Consult a financial advisor to craft a personalized plan and start building your wealth for a secure future!

UK banks must refund fraud victims up to £85,000 within five days under new rules.

Most High Street banks and payment companies voluntarily compensate customers who are tricked into sending money to scammers.

But in a world first, these refunds will become mandatory from 7 October, the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) has announced.

The watchdog has reduced the maximum compensation from a previous proposal of £415,000. It said the new cap of £85,000 would cover more than 99% of claims.

It also announced that once a bank or payment company had refunded a customer, it could claim half back from the financial institution the fraudster used to receive the stolen money.

When criminals dupe their victims into sending them money by pretending to be a legitimate company, such as their bank or a tradesperson or by selling goods that do not exist, this is known as authorised push payment fraud (APP).

The number of cases of this type of fraud rose by 12% to 232,429 in 2023, with losses totalling £459.7m, according to UK Finance.

There is currently no requirement for banks to refund victims of APP fraud, but these new rules will change that from next month.

The maximum refund was slashed after objections from the financial industry that it could cause problems for smaller firms.

Out of more than 250,000 cases in 2023, there were 18 instances of people being scammed for more than £415,000, and 411 instances where they lost more than £85,000, the PSR said.

David Geale, managing director of PSR said the new rules would mean all victims of this type of fraud would now get the same level of help.

“Whether you get reimbursed and how much can actually depend on who you bank with and that can’t be right,” he said. “We want to have a consistent experience.”

He said claiming half the compensation back from the bank the fraudster used would be a “game changer” because it would incentivise the industry to shut down accounts sooner to prevent fraud and therefore payouts.

Asked whether smaller banks could get into financial trouble if they have to pay out lots of large refunds he said: “If they can prevent this happening then they haven’t got a bill to pay.”