The West Bromwich building society has preserved its independence - for now - but the debt-for-equity swap it engineered with the Financial Services Authority comes at the expense of its members.

Its arrangement to exchange £182.5m of debt for capital is a satisfactory one from the government's point of view since, without it, West Brom's toxic loans would have had to be nationalised, and its branches and savings deposits sold off to a rival such as the Coventry, said to be waiting in the wings.

What about the members, though? They are the owners of the society, but have not even been given a vote on the solution. It has simply been imposed upon them - surely an absolute flouting of the principles of mutuality. Chief executive Robert Sharpe, who was parachuted in last autumn, is meant to act in the interests of members at all times, but the deal to which he has signed up will significantly dilute the value of their ownership stake.

Despite the woes of the West Brom and others including the Principality, the Chelsea and the Newcastle, the mutual model is not broken. Diversity on the high street is good for consumers, and there is no reason why building societies should not do just fine in future - so long as they stay away from risky areas such as commercial lending or heavy exposure to buy-to-let. The case for mutuality is not helped, however, if members are ridden over roughshod by regulators and management.

The bankers have claimed another victim - this column. Cost-cutting as a result of the worst media recession in a lifetime means that Observer Management will disappear next week.

I wish I could say the job was complete. When I joined the paper in 1993, the brief was to make visible and discussable something that was intangible, taken for granted, and, for better or worse, affected us all. That was the easy bit. The column instantly drew a rich and argumentative response that ensured a constant supply of issues to address that meshed directly with readers' own.

But from this exchange emerged a second agenda item that soon overtook the first. Across both public and private sectors what readers experienced as "management" was pervasively problematic. It just wasn't what it said on the tin. Wherever they looked, readers found a glaring discrepancy between "official" and "unofficial" versions, between talk and walk.

The talk was empowerment, shared destiny, pulling together: the walk was increasing work intensity, tight performance management, risk offloaded on to the individual. The talk was flat organisations: the reality, centralisation and a yawning divide between other ranks, required to minimise their demands for the greater good, and a remote officer class whose rewards had to soar to motivate them to do their job. Employees were the most valuable asset - until costs had to be cut. Repeated mis-selling and other scandals demonstrated it certainly wasn't the customer who was king.

Somewhere along the line the edifice of management had been turned upside down - it was shareholders who had become monarch, their courtiers lavishly rewarded managers whose MBA courses had taught them to manage deals and numbers, not things or people. Management had suffered a reverse takeover. Finance annexed reality, cost ousted value, the means became the end.

This is the story that this column has reflected. Shamefully, it reached its explosive climax on the watch of a Labour government that, betraying its entire history, not only encouraged ethics-free market-led management principles in the private sector but imposed them wholesale on the public sector. The credit crunch is man(agement)-made - management, not market, failure. So is the Soviet-style targets and inspection regime, locked in place by lucrative IT contracts with private suppliers, that has made the public sector systemically less capable than it was 12 years ago, despite the billions spent. The emails of rage and despair from public-sector workers at what has been done to their profession have to be read to be believed. And still ministers don't get it. The elevation of the grisly Alan Sugar to "enterprise tsar" and the timorous, frozen-in-the-headlights approach to City reform in one sense are as risible as MPs' expenses - but they are also a terrifying denial of reality.

Of course, institutional stupidity and failure to take responsibility are characteristic of all top-down organisations - in fact, they're two sides of the same coin. Hence the reductio ad absurdum, also charted here, of gleaming hi-tech organisations too witless to stop themselves auto-destructing. What is there about the credit crunch and the environmental one hard on its heels that is not to understand? The management model that has run us for the past 30 years, like the discredited economic theories (rational expectations, efficient markets) to which it cringes, is bust, dead, finished - a mortal danger to us and the planet.

So where do we go from here? Optimism has been in short supply over the past few years. Yet this is not because of lack of alternatives (There Is Always An Alternative) so much as the arrogant certainties of the ruling doctrine that have pushed saner voices to the margin, at worst making unorthodoxy unpublishable. Perhaps the collapse of orthodoxy will make it easier to salute and cherish such exceptions: companies that refuse the dominant logic, such as John Lewis; academics who risk their careers by engaging with big issues (would Darwin, Freud and Marx be employable in today's universities?); courageous public-sector managers who find ways of circumventing the draconian targets regime to do what they know to be right.

As the 2009 Reith lecturer Michael Sandel noted last week, norms matter, because they so easily become self-fulfilling. It shouldn't need saying in the middle of the biggest management meltdown in history, when the stakes are at their highest, that the debate about the norms that should govern a post-financial form of management must go on, even if not here. For my part, what I've learned from an amazingly rewarding 16 years will find its way into a book that, in honour of readers who are the joint creators, I had always thought of as The Observer's book of management - although regrettably, and not of my doing, now without the capital "O".

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Some employers are using maternity leave as a convenient excuse to make staff redundant, says Jon Robins

Out of sight, out of mind. That seems to be the case for mothers returning from maternity leave who, according to reports, are increasingly being singled out for redundancy in the economic downturn.

So what can you do if your boss targets you, just because you are a new mum? "It's extraordinarily difficult to pursue an action for pregnancy discrimination," reckons Ros Bragg, director of Maternity Action.

"Whilst the law is clear, it's often very difficult to prove. Plus, women who are in the late stages of pregnancy, or at home looking after a baby, or who have just returned to work, simply don't have the time or energy."

Maternity Alliance is part of a new campaign - the Alliance against Pregnancy Discrimination - which also includes Citizens Advice, Working Families, Maternity Action, the Fawcett Society and the single parents group Gingerbread. They all report an alarming rise in the number of women claiming that they have been victims of pregnancy-related discrimination in the workplace.

Working Families' helpline has received 198 calls this year, including at least one a month "where a woman is dismissed on, or soon after, the day she informs her employer of her pregnancy".

Case worker Vanessa Wheeler reports the case of a young single mum who was told maternity leave had been scrapped and that "as a concession" she could take two weeks' annual leave following the birth. She didn't take action fearing she would lose her job.

Sophie, 39, worked at a well-known media company for almost two decades and, as business director, held one of the most senior posts.

In March she returned to work after giving birth to Charlie. "I was ready to go back after 11 months' leave. I had a nanny and my four-year-old daughter was in full-time nursery," she says.

"On my first day back my boss said he'd meet me in the bar ... all very media. Instead of going to my office, he walked me into a glass-sided room in human resources in full view of everyone. Then the penny dropped."

Sophie was told she was on notice of redundancy. "Out of a department of about 90, I was the only person made redundant. I happened to be the only person on maternity leave," she says.

Her employer put her forward for two jobs, neither of which were suitable - in one case, the prospective employer cancelled the interview half an hour beforehand and appeared to forget a second, rescheduled one. The second job was, as she puts it, "totally inappropriate" and the offer only made after she was made redundant. "They decided to get rid me after 19 years' unblemished record. The treatment was appalling. My overall feeling is one of anger and sadness."

Camilla Palmer, an expert in discrimination law at Leigh Day & Co (also a member of the Alliance) is advising Sophie: "The question for women like her is what would have happened had she not been on maternity leave?

"If she would not have been made redundant but for her maternity leave, this will be discrimination.

"The courts have also said that if there is a failure to consult a woman because she is on maternity leave, that in itself is discrimination."

Current legal protections are, in theory at least, "very strong". But as Cathy Rogan, rights adviser for Working Families, says, there are two significant difficulties - women have to prove discrimination and they have to enforce those rights.

Proving discrimination is often problematic "particularly where it amounts to snide comments and a gradual freezing out", says Rogan. "If you suspect this, keep notes and talk to your employer."

If that doesn't work, there is always the employment tribunal. Take speedy advice from an adviser who specialises in maternity discrimination. You have to bring a claim within three months (less a day) of the act complained of. There is no legal aid to pay for a lawyer to represent you (although there might be for initial advice).

A good place to start is the Working Families helpline (workingfamilies.org.uk, 0800 013 0313) or the Equality and Human Rights Commission (www.equalityhumanrights.com).

Citizens advice and law centres also have specialist employment advisers.

And check your home contents insurance to see if you have legal expense cover. Under such policies, you have the legal right to instruct your own solicitor.

A weekend of live music can cost a fortune, so safeguard what's left over with these handy tips, advise Hilary Osborne and Huma Qureshi

Time was when going to a music festival meant free love and free tickets - now you could easily have shelled out more than £150 before you even pitch your tent. With all that outlay you need to take good care of what is left in your wallet. Here is our guide to ...

Looking after your stuff

Festivals are hardly hotbeds of crime, but things do get lost and stolen. Last year 489 crimes were reported at Glastonbury - the majority thefts from tents.

The message from police and festival organisers is that you shouldn't take valuables when you go to an event. If you do, unless you have the right insurance, you won't be able to claim back the value of anything that goes missing.

Greg Gladwell, director of property claims at Aviva, says: "None of your everyday belongings are insured when you're out and about - whether it's a muddy festival field or a concert at Wembley - unless you have additional personal belongings cover.

"It could be that you already have personal belongings cover as part of your home contents policy. If you don't, you might want to consider adding it on."

Bolting it on will usually cost around £15-£20. This often won't cover your camping gear though - you may need to add that separately and pay another charge. And an insurance claim also incurs an excess of around £100, so you need to work out whether it is worth taking out insurance at all if your belongings are not worth much more than this.

To make a claim you will need a crime number, so report any theft to the police. You will also need to show you took care of the stolen items, so don't leave things lying around in your tent while you are off watching bands.

The safest place for your valuables is in the lockers provided by most festival organisers. A spokeswoman for Avon and Somerset Police, who will be in action at Glastonbury, says: "The main thing that we will be promoting this year is the lock-ups because no one uses them and they're free."

Other festivals charge for lockers. At Reading and Leeds and Latitude this is a substantial £15 for the weekend, although all lockers contain phone chargers (you will need a 12v car adapter) and you get a souvenir padlock. At Green Man you will be asked for a £5 donation and you can use the locker all weekend, as long as you don't store "pets, kids, bombs, guns or other animate or angsty things".

Cashpoints

The problem of cash is a tricky one. Most festivals have ATMs on site so you don't need to take all your cash for the whole weekend with you. However, withdrawals cost money - a charge of £2 per transaction is fairly typical - and there are likely to be big queues.

At Latitude there are eight ATMs for 25,000 people, and other festivals have a similar cash machine-to-festival-goer ratio. For city-centre festivals it may be worth leaving the site to visit a fee-free ATM. At other events you may have to choose between arriving with lots of cash or paying to access your money.

You can cut down on how much money you will need by taking some provisions with you. You might find it better to plan to make a big breakfast each day and take some snacks to sustain you until you buy a meal in the evening.

Taking your own alcohol will also save you cash, although glass bottles are banned at most festivals, and at those sites where the arena and camping are separate you will not be allowed to take it into the arena.

Stocking up on items during the festival is easy at urban events such as Reading and Summer Sundae in Leicester, but if you are in the middle of a field you will have to plan ahead.

Most festivals have now adopted strategies to cut waste, which include charging people a deposit on the first drink they buy from the bar to encourage them to reuse plastic cups. Don't waste money by failing to take your cup back - the deposit may be pennies but it can add up. Reading festival spokesman Lewis Jamieson says: "We have some enterprising people going round and collecting them.

"Last year a steward told me he had met a lad who claimed to have made over £100 over the weekend by returning cups to the bar and collecting the 10ps."

Buying festival essentials

Tents, sleeping bags, waterproofs and wellies are on everyone's festival checklist, but it can be costly to buy everything at once. Mainstream or specialist outdoor shops such as Blacks, Cotswold Outdoor and Millets are pretty expensive: Blacks' (blacks.co.uk) cheapest model, the two-man mystery tent, costs £49.99. But hunt around for discount codes online and you could make substantial savings - we found a 20% off code for Blacks on voucher code site Everydaysale.co.uk.

Similarly, you could get an extra 5% off with a code from MyVoucherCodes.co.uk at Halfords (halfords.co.uk) where you can buy a four-man value tent for £69 or a two-man tent for only £39.

You could also try a local army store - they sell loads of basic surplus gear far cheaper than mainstream outdoor shops. The Army Store (thearmystore.co.uk) has pac-a-macs and waterproofs from £8.99, wellies from £9.99, waterproof trousers from £8.99 and camping mats from £4.99.

It only stocks one tent, however, the one-man quick pitch pop-up tent, but at £29.99 it is still £15 less than the recommended retail price.

Some online retailers are promoting "festival packs" where you can make savings by buying everything you need together. Winwood Outdoor (winwood-outdoor.co.uk) is doing a package deal of a tempest tent, sleeping bag and foam mat for £32.50 (it would cost £65 if you bought them all separately).

Meanwhile, Tesco (tesco.co.uk) is doing a special offer on a two-man camp set, offering a tent, two sleeping bags, two foam mats and a carry bag for £22.49.

If you've got Tesco Clubcard vouchers stashed away you could trade them in and avoid paying in cash.

Gala Coral, the private equity-owned gambling group, is facing another wave of regulatory uncertainty just as the debt-laden business struggles to swallow swingeing duty hikes imposed on its bingo halls and slot machines.

Industry regulator the Gambling Commission is later this month expected to advise culture minister Gerry Sutcliffe to carry out further research into links between betting shop roulette machines and problem gambling. A study two years ago found one in nine players on the machines were problem gamblers.

The move will add to uncertainty for all bookmakers, including Coral, which was one of the first to see the potential of roulette slot machines. Analysts are speculating that Chancellor Alistair Darling may see roulette machines as an easy target for future tax increases.

The commission has also privately told ministers it believes Gala and other bingo operators have persuaded local authorities to twist licensing rules in order to increase the number of £500 jackpot slot machines permissible in each club. Artificial subdivisions within clubs have been used to gain multiple licences, boosting the number of lucrative machines they are allowed to run.

The commission has repeatedly published guidance on how local authorities should treat multiple licence applications, but privately concedes it is powerless to enforce its views.

Regulators are not believed to have singled out Gala Coral, but the business is seen as one of the most vulnerable to any regulatory crackdown because it is already straining to service debts of £4.4bn.

Gala Coral is the only UK business to operate in all three high street gambling categories - bingo halls, casinos and betting shops - all of which have been hit by regulatory and tax changes in recent years. Combined with drops in consumer spending, these have prompted its private equity owners Permira, Cinven and Candover to each write down the value of their investment to zero.

In May last year Gala Coral received a £124m cash injection from the three firms, and renegotiated some of its loan covenants. However, it must repay £80m of debt by September this year, with a further £150m falling due in the following 12 months.

The firm denies it is preparing another restructuring, dismissing rumours that it is seeking to demerge bookmaker Coral, the division that generates almost two-thirds of operating profit.

The company is fiercely cutting costs and has cancelled its membership of trade associations Bingo Association, the British Casino Association, the Association of British Bookmakers and the Remote Gambling Association.

At year-end last September Gala Coral had £4.4bn of borrowings, of which £1.6bn was "investor-funded debt". It made an operating profit last year of £362m. Since then the business has been hit by duty rises on bingo and slot machines introduced in April's budget, with the impact expected to run into several millions of pounds.

Adding to its woes, Gala Coral will be forced to book an exceptional charge of £10.6m when it publishes accounts for the current financial year because of a failed interest rate swap contract with collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Tenants are cashing in as a new-build property surplus leads to a glut of cheap lettings, writes Graham Norwood

Tenants in the north-west and Yorkshire are enjoying the biggest rent falls in the country as landlords and developers compete to let out huge numbers of flats.

In north-west England, which includes Manchester and Liverpool, rents are down an average of 15.7% over the past year to a typical £580 per month - although canny tenants often secure further reductions. In Yorkshire rents are down 7.9% in the past year to £558. In the West Midlands 6.2% and in the East Midlands 3.4%.

The exception is the north-east where rents are down just 0.8%. This area includes Newcastle, where the council rejected many schemes by developers for large numbers of flats, and at one time introduced a moratorium on new building.

These figures, from findaproperty.com, contrast with modest falls in Scotland and southern England, and even small rises in some regions.

The reason behind the divide is simple: the supply of new flats in northern cities has soared in the past two years, just as landlords and owner-occupiers have found it increasingly difficult to buy them. Developers, keen to recoup some costs, have started renting out the flats they cannot sell.

Christopher Brown-Colbert, 25, is one tenant who has taken advantage of the glut. "There's so much choice. When I first rented in Manchester five years ago I was shown just two flats and had to snap up one of them. Now there are scores to see, each with incentives. There's more choice than ever and you can trade up to a bigger place yet pay the same as last year," he says.

He and a flatmate each pay £375 a month for a two-bedroom flat just built in Castlefield by developer Dandara. It is close to the university where Brown-Colbert is completing a five-year architecture degree.

"It's a big apartment with more space than we know what to do with and there's a balcony. We got the developer to pay the water bills too. It's a much better deal than I had in a different flat a year ago," he says.

Across the UK the number of houses to let has fallen this year - down 1.2% in May alone, meaning average rents are rising because demand exceeds supply. "In stark contrast, the supply of flats for rent rose for the sixth consecutive month with a 4.9% rise month-on-month in May 2009," says Andrew Smith, head of research at Findaproperty.

Even better news for tenants is that rents in northern England and the Midlands may fall further as the oversupply of new apartments is set to worsen in the short term.

Research by property consultancy Drivers Jonas shows that in Liverpool just 189 new apartments were built in 2001 while 1,022 were completed last year. Another 730 are under construction, and planning permission exists for some 4,500 flats.

The firm says an estimated 2,500 new homes will be finished in Manchester this year, the vast majority of which will be flats - a 50% rise on 2008. But as developers switch plans, so the number of new flats scheduled for completion in 2010 is likely to fall to less than 300.

The glut of apartments in many city centres creates problems for long-standing landlords. Most of them paid top dollar for their investment properties some years ago, so have high mortgage commitments. But their rental incomes are now falling as they compete with developers letting out unsold newbuild flats. Those landlords tempted to sell their properties find they cannot afford to match the big discounts on new-build units being offered by desperate developers.

"The purchase price for flats in our area has halved since its peak of 2006-2007," says Andrew Duncan of Liverpool estate agent JB & B Leach.

However, this tenants' market will not last forever. A developer in central Leeds has switched its scheme from flats to student accommodation to avoid adding to the glut of homes, while another developer has withdrawn a plan to build a £100m scheme of flats.

Across the UK, more than 50% of properties built recently by Barratt Homes were flats, but the firm says it will cut that figure to 30% by mid-2010. Britain's biggest builder, Taylor Wimpey, has cut its share of flats from 40% in 2007 to 26% now.

In time, those changes will feed in to the lettings sector and may mean an end to falling rents. In the meantime, however, it remains a tenant's market in the north - with further rent reductions to come.

Is it time to abolish our existing leasehold laws?

Yes says Nigel Wilkins, head of the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold (Carl)

Despite the growing consensus that leasehold is a deeply flawed form of residential tenure, the number of leasehold homes is increasing more rapidly than at any stage since feudal times. With flats accounting for a greater proportion of new homes than ever before, leasehold properties will soon pass the 3m mark.

Leasehold tenure is not really home ownership. It merely confers the right on the leaseholder to live in a property for a prescribed number of years, rendering the lease a depreciating asset whose value dwindles to virtually nothing at the end of its term.

Few countries outside England and Wales retain residential leasehold tenure, since all other countries have developed more modern systems of tenure for flat ownership. Neighbouring Scotland and Ireland have legislation in place designed to end leasehold tenure on terms fair to all.

Looking further afield, cooperative flat ownership across the rest of Europe, condominium ownership in the US, and the strata-title system of Australia, each - in their separate ways - provide flat-dwellers with full ownership rights over their homes, with collective control over the management of their blocks.

A lease is an extraordinarily one-sided contract, in which the leasehold interest pays for everything - from the full cost of the original development of the building, through to its day-to-day maintenance. By contrast, the freeholder, or lessor, pays none of these costs, yet at the end of the lease takes back full ownership.

The requirement for leaseholders to pay for the maintenance of their blocks through service charges adds to the unfairness. They have little control over how their money is spent, and many landlords and managing agents take advantage by charging well above commercial rates for repairs and other services, including buildings insurance.

Another system of tenure for flat owners - commonhold - was introduced five years ago. However, it will never replace leasehold since developers will always find it less lucrative.

There are also nearly 1m leasehold houses in England and Wales, many originally built by employers in the industrial heartlands.

Unscrupulous landlords have invested in freeholds in these areas, charging thousands of pounds simply to grant approval for building modifications carried out by the leaseholder.

A further issue highlighting the gross inequity of the system is the forfeiture provision in most leases. Under current law, if more than £350 is proved to be owing in ground rent and/or service charges, the landlord may be able to lay claim to the leaseholder's home.

The weak legal position is exacerbated by the fact that the sector is entirely unregulated and few leaseholders have access to an ombudsman scheme.

Anyone, whatever the length and breadth of their criminal record, can become a landlord or managing agent.

The raft of measures to give rights to leaseholders have achieved little more than add to cost and complexity.

Commonhold, and the other forms of tenure developed elsewhere, offer the benefit of freehold for those living in flats. Feudal systems of property tenure should have no place in modern Britain.

No says Ben Young, chief executive of RLHA Group, a not-for-profit housing association

Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all those other forms that have been tried ..." Change the context and he could almost have been talking about leasehold tenure. There is a common perception that it is a feudal tenure best suited to forelock-tugging peasants and rapacious landlords.

However, when we look at leasehold today, the picture is different from even 20 years ago. A stream of legislation has recognised the imbalance in power between leaseholders and landlords. Leaseholders now have the right to take over the management of their block on a "no fault" basis through Right to Manage. They even have the power to acquire their freehold collectively under enfranchisement legislation.

Leaseholders now have a statutory right to extend leases and can challenge the reasonableness of service charges through the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The powers of landlords are being steadily eroded, and rightly so - after all, leaseholders typically own around 95% of the equity in their block. The peasants are on the march.

Growing self-regulation through professional bodies such as the Association of Residential Managing Agents is helping drive up standards. Slowly, but surely, the sector is putting its house in order and reining in those rogue managing agents who regard leaseholders less as customers to be served, and more as a mineral deposit to be exploited. Codes of practice such as at the Association of Retirement Housing Managers and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors have statutory recognition and add to the peasants' armoury.

While the intricacies of leasehold tenure are absorbing for academics and leasehold management practitioners, the concern of most ordinary leaseholders is to have a secure, comfortable home in a well-managed block for a fair service charge.

With legal reforms and codes of practice, the balance of power has shifted to the point where most leaseholders really can hold the whip hand. But do most of them want to grasp the power? I sometimes get the feeling they prefer to carry on grumbling about their landlord or managing agent, rather than risk taking control and ending up with no one to blame when things go wrong. Nevertheless, the mere fact that these powers exist has helped put pressure on property managers to raise their game.

We should always remember there are far too many abuses in leasehold management. My association recently took over a block in Bayswater, west London, from a managing agent who was charging residents £19,000 a year for buildings insurance: we cut the cost to £6,000, not because we are especially clever, simply because we refuse to take commissions or other hidden payments out of leaseholders' funds.

If we don't like leasehold, what are the alternatives? Commonhold is a great concept, but fewer than 20 commonhold associations have been registered, and there have been no conversions from existing leaseholds.

It is a fact that commonholds will scarcely figure on the radar in the near future. So whether we like it or not, leasehold is with us to stay - and with the peasants asserting their dominance as the power of landlords wanes, maybe we can even learn to love it.

What do you think?

If you have a leasehold flat do you think it's a rip-off or do you get good value for money? And if you had the choice, would you prefer freehold? Write to Cash, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU, email This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or join the debate online at guardian.co.uk/money

It's time to hang up on the 0845 numbers that are pushing the poorest people further into debt, says Neasa MacErlean

It took just a few weeks for Sarah, who had her finances under control, to find herself on the verge of eviction. Due to an administrative error, the single mother in Manchester had her child benefit stopped.

As a result, her entitlement to income support, housing and council tax benefits also, incorrectly, dried up. What really made her situation impossible, however, was that she had to phone an 0845 number to reach the child benefit helpline to try and sort out the problem.

Like many other people on low incomes, she only has a mobile - and calls to 0845 numbers can easily cost 10p a minute.

She and her son found themselves with no money left for essentials (including paying the rent), as all her cash was going on calls to the helpline.

She would hold for two minutes, then a recorded message would play saying: "All lines are engaged. Try again later." Eventually, Manchester Citizens Advice (CA) phoned from a landline to try and sort out the situation.

Her story is one of dozens included in a new CA report, to be published on Tuesday. "Hung Up - the cost of calling government from a mobile phone" shows how the wellbeing of thousands of people is being destroyed by this apparently trivial detail of government bureaucracy.

It is not just government departments that are guilty. If you get into debt with Severn Trent, for example, your file can be outsourced to a debt collection company who will give you an 0870 number to call them back. In effect, this means that people struggling to pay their bills could be boosting the profits of the debt collectors each time they pick up the telephone. Even from a landline, it could be 10p a minute.

Severn Trent - which confirmed the situation but has not commented on the rights and wrongs - is not unusual. There are about 400,000 numbers beginning with 0870 receiving 2.8bn minutes of calls a year, according to regulator Ofcom.

Complaints are rising about the use of these numbers - particularly over long queueing times and the way they can be used to scam people.

But change could be in the air, at least as far as calls to government departments are concerned. John Battle, the MP for Leeds West, has worked closely with Leeds CA, which produced the "Hung Up" report.

At the start of this month Battle laid down an early day motion - a motion intended to publicise an issue - in the Commons highlighting the problem and calling "on the government urgently to ensure that its benefit claim lines, and in particular its crisis loans claim line, are made free to calls from a mobile telephone".

The root problem, according to CA, is that helplines were first started up over a decade ago when call centres were established, and few people had mobiles. Today, however, there are more mobile numbers than people in the UK and, according to CA, "the poorest people are the most likely to rely exclusively on their mobile phone".

It has found particular problems for people trying to get a Crisis Loan - on a number which is free to landlines but can cost 40p a minute on mobiles.

More than 95% of calls made to this 0800 number are put through to a recorded message, according both to CA and to an survey by the Independent Review Service, an official tribunal scheme.

To get to speak to an operator, a potential claimant would typically need to ring an average of 20 times. Listening to the two-minute recorded message that plays each time could easily cost £16.

Government departments could change the way they operate if they wished. The Financial Ombudsman Service, for instance, is seen as a model. As well as having an 0845 number, it runs an 03 number (which, as it says, "may be cheaper if you use a mobile phone or a phone company other than BT") and a normal landline number.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, which runs the Crisis Loan Claim Line and other benefits helplines, says: "All calls to claim working age benefits use 0800 numbers which are usually free to our customers from landlines. Our 0845 numbers are charged at the standard rate, but we will always call the customer back, if they ask, to cut the cost to them."

HM Revenue & Customs - which runs tax credits, student loans, as well as the tax system - told Cash: "HMRC operates 0845 numbers for the majority of its customer-facing helplines and has no immediate plans to allocate 0300 telephone prefixes to its helplines. "

Code breakers

The website saynoto0870.com lists alternative landline numbers, for hundreds of organisations across the country, that could save mobile callers money. Here are a few examples:

• Department for Work and Pensions (pensions enquiries) Instead of 0845 606 0265, dial 0191 218 7777

• HMRC tax credits helpline Instead of 0845 300 3900, dial 01355 359007

• National Express East Anglia Instead of 0870 333 4876, dial 01603 214505

• Thames Water Instead of 0845 641 0055, dial 01793 366011

• DVLA (driver enquiries) Instead of 0870 240 0009, dial 01792 771462

The London Development Agency, Boris Johnson's economic and business unit, has failed to make provisions for up to £60m worth of payments to former landowners on the Olympic park in east London.

The apparent oversight means the LDA, which has a total budget of £630m, may have to delay or even scrap vital infrastructure and enterprise projects as it attempts to find the shortfall.

The revelation will be embarrassing for Johnson, who strongly criticised previous London mayor Ken Livingstone's handling of the LDA; and it will lead to charges of financial incompetence from opponents of the Tory city leader.

More than 100 landowners were required to sell to the LDA to create the Olympic park where most of the 2012 games' events will take place. Payments total £1bn but are phased and rely on calculations that are now resulting in higher-than-expected figures, say sources close to the LDA.

A member of the agency's board, which is chaired by hedge fund manager Harvey McGrath, conceded there was a problem, but said no one would lose their job over the issue.

A spokesperson for Johnson said: "An internal review at the LDA, which is ongoing, has identified some additional spending commitments and has adjusted budgets to accommodate it. No additional overall borrowing is needed and 2009 expenditure is accounted for."

The problems over Olympic funding in London comes as a multimillion-pound project to improve the seafront at Weymouth in Dorset, where the Olympic sailing will take place, has been axed. The South West Regional Development Agency pulled its £6.6m contribution as it seeks to close a £56m budget shortfall as a result of the economic crisis.

But Olympic organisers will breathe a sigh of relief this week if, as expected, housing minister John Healey confirms that Barclays Bank and the European Investment Bank will lend about £500m to convert the Olympic village into homes to rent and buy.

Meanwhile, plans to build a school at the 2012 stadium are being revised by the new Olympic legacy supremo, Margaret Ford. It is understood that the stadium, whose capacity will be reduced from 80,000 to 25,000 after the games, is now to be principally a centre for athletics.

Savings: Intelligent Finance bucks Isa rate trend

Intelligent Finance, part of the Lloyds Banking Group, increased the rate on its cash Isa this weekend to 2.75%. After a series of rate cuts and product withdrawals by banks and building societies over the past fortnight, this is now one of the highest rates for a cash Isa that does not require notice for withdrawal or savers to tie up their money for a year or more. Intelligent Finance will also increase the rate on its isaver account to 2.85%, putting it among the top instant-access savings accounts alongside Principality, which has a new online savings account paying 2.85% - including a 1.2% introductory bonus rate for the first 12 months. Barnsley building society, which is now part of Yorkshire building society, has launched a competitive savings account paying 2.5%. The new account is only available online, and has a paperless application process, for which actual signatures are not required.

Animal diseases: Low-cost vaccinations boots from vets

Pet owners have until the end of the month to save money on vaccinations for their animals, with vets offering cut-price jabs as part of National Vaccination Month. Around 2,000 veterinary practices across the country have joined the campaign, offering a full vaccination course against a range of potentially fatal diseases for the cost of a booster. The campaign says this should be no more than £55 for a cat, dog or rabbit, including a free health check and two visits to the vet. Recent research for the National Vaccination campaign, which is spearheaded by TV presenter Kate Humble, revealed that nearly a quarter of vet practices are seeing a reduction in vaccination levels due to the credit crunch. At the same time, 20% of practices have reported a large increase in serious disease over the past 12 months. You can find your nearest participating vet at vaccinationmonth.co.uk.

Broadband: Need for speed not matched by providers

Only half of householders with broadband are happy with the speed of their connection, according to new research. While most providers advertise standard speeds of up to 8Mb, according to users the average speed they are getting is only around half that at 4.2Mb, uswitch.com says. With 40% of users signed up to 8Mb packages, only 3% confirm they are actually receiving this speed, the price comparison site added. "The need for speed is only going to increase as more companies develop media-rich websites and the popularity of online TV continues to skyrocket," said Jason Glynn, communications specialist at uswitch.com. "What is clear is that consumers cannot be certain that they are getting the speed advertised by their provider. It is down to them to check." You can find the speed of your service at websites such as thinkbroadband.com/speedtest

Credit cards: Now Abbey cards get the Santander look

Abbey will rebrand its credit cards as Santander from tomorrow, when all new and replacement cards will be issued under that name. To go with the rebrand, Abbey credit card holders who took out their cards before May will benefit from fee-free foreign usage during June and July. Existing Zero credit card customers already benefit from this. There's bad news for some other credit card holders, however, as the average credit card purchase rate has risen by almost 2% in the past two years, according to Moneyfacts. In the past six months, 12 cards have increased rates including those from American Express, Bank of Scotland, Capital One Bank, Halifax and Nationwide. Customers who repay only the minimum will be hardest hit with typically an additional £408 in interest now payable on a balance of £2,000, Moneyfacts said.

With one bound, we are free: a couple of months of hopeful news from manufacturers, a few signs of life from the housing market, and suddenly pundits are predicting the end of recession.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, for example, said last week that the UK may have started to grow again, after nine months of contraction.

There are certainly reasons to be cheerful: industry should benefit from the cheaper pound; and the housing market - crucial to consumer confidence - appears to be stabilising.

Even if the green shoots brigade are right, though, it will be a very long time before anything like normality returns. Peter Dixon of Commerzbank points out that the 5% fall in economic output since the start of the downturn last year is on the scale of the recessions of the 1930s and 1980s, - "which only managed to recover to pre-crash levels after four years", he says.

Adam Lent, head of economic policy at the TUC, warns that policymakers may seize on the signs of recovery to justify relenting in their anti-recession policies, and cutting public spending. And even if growth returns, ordinary workers will not feel the benefits for months.

With many consumers still sitting on huge debts, and credit-crunched banks remaining cautious, any recovery is likely to be sickly at best: the International Monetary Fund has noted that recessions accompanied by a financial crisis tend to be prolonged.

Karen Ward, chief UK economist at HSBC, says, "We're probably through the contraction part. I think we'll get some decent growth coming through - but then you could see it moderating to something a lot less spectacular."

Another big unknown is what happens to the global economic climate. In the US, where the housing downturn has already lasted for more than two years, rising bond yields have pushed up long-term mortgage rates, exacerbating the risk that recovery is snuffed out before it has had a chance to take hold.

Perhaps most alarming of all, some time in the next 12 months the Bank of England governor Mervyn King has to begin withdrawing from his £125bn quantitative easing spree. Citigroup's Michael Saunders says this means a "delicate communications challenge" for the monetary policy committee, which will have to "signal the end of the expansionary phase of quantitative easing without destabilising financial markets and creating fears of imminent tightening".