Today in Money: We start the week with our regular careers feature – this time, we find out what it’s really like to be a private investigator. We also report on the impact budget pension rumours are having. Use the comments box below to get in touch and subscribe to our newsletter.
Monday 13 October 2025 09:30, UK
By James Sillars, business and economics reporter 
If this year has taught us anything, it’s to closely watch Donald Trump’s Truth Social account to keep track of his dealmaking playbook.
On Friday afternoon, the US president threatened to impose additional tariffs of 100% on China in response to the country’s planned restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals – products that are crucial for the manufacture of tech from computer chips to jet engines.
The prospect of a return to trade war, rather than trade talks, sent financial markets into a tailspin with the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite in the US falling by 3.6% – its worst day since April’s trade war slide.
It was a similar story across US stock markets, while those in Europe were open just long enough to feel a hit.
The FTSE 100 fell by 0.9% on Friday.
Brent crude oil plunged by 4% to $62 a barrel and the dollar sank too. Bitcoin was down 17%, while gold – a popular safe haven during Trump’s second term – rose back above the $4,000 per ounce level.
Perhaps in reaction to the US stock market falls, Trump struck a different tone on social media over the weekend.
“Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. The USA wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”
What?!
Some saw this as a so-called TACO (Trump always chickens out) moment.
Though others pointed out the whole thing was probably a staged play, prepping the ground for an expected meeting with President Xi at a summit later this month.
Either way, US futures are positive and stability has returned to shares in Europe as the FTSE has, like rivals, opened slightly higher at 9,445. That’s a rise of 0.2%.
Trump’s dealings have dominated stock market sentiment this year.
It’s an abrasive style but, looking across at the scenes in the Middle East right now, it’s sometimes difficult to fault it when the results almost always go in his favour.
A lack of clarity on potential pension changes in the budget is leading to “erratic behaviours” among those approaching retirement, experts have claimed.
Audit, tax and business advisory firm Blick Rothenberg have released a statement ahead of the 26 November set-piece by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
“People in the 55-65-year-old age cohort are potentially jeopardising six-figure pension savings because of fears that the tax-free lump sum will be slashed,” Tomm Adams, a partner at the firm, said.
“This along with the fact that inheritance tax will also be levied on unused defined contribution pension pots from April 2027 is leading to a surge in people withdrawing their 25% lump sum, potentially needlessly, sacrificing future growth and reducing their ability to save further amounts tax-efficiently.
“The tax consequences they face can’t be undone once that can of worms is opened.”
What pension changes could we see in the budget?
Experts speaking to industry news agency Newspage have shared some of the ways pensions could be tweaked during the budget:
If you’ve ever spent your morning commute daydreaming about starting afresh with your career, this feature is for you. Each Monday, we speak to someone from a different profession to discover what it’s really like. This week, we chat to veteran private investigator Mike LaCorte.
Our fees vary depending on complexity, jurisdictions and objectives… A standard surveillance job might cost anywhere from £1,500-£2,500 a day. A due diligence report for a corporate merger could be £5,000-£15,000. Blackmail resolution involving travel, cyber support, and legal coordination might start at £25,000 and scale up. Longer-term retainer risk management models are where we earn the most.
Here’s one of my secrets for investigating… People often reuse usernames. By tracking a username across platforms, databases, and forums, you can build a surprisingly complete profile, even if the person thinks they’ve been discreet. 
Curiosity, genuine, relentless curiosity, is the single most important skill in this profession… You have to be deeply interested in people, behaviours, patterns, and anomalies. It’s that instinct to ask why, to dig one layer deeper than everyone else, that often leads to the breakthrough. You can teach someone the technical elements, but curiosity, in my opinion, can’t be taught. It’s either part of your mindset, or it’s not.
There isn’t one set path… I entered the industry at a time when training was scarce, so much of it was hands-on. Today, I encourage new investigators to take formal courses, join professional associations like the ABI and continually educate themselves.
Reputation is everything… If you’ve delivered results under pressure and acted with integrity, people remember and recommend you. We don’t advertise in the traditional sense.
Blackmail cases are increasingly common… especially in high-net-worth circles. Crypto scams and family disputes involving hidden wealth are also on the rise. Our other most common cases include…
Success in my industry is often difficult to shout about… The most significant wins usually happen quietly, behind closed doors, under strict confidentiality. That said, one standout moment was being awarded Investigator of the Year by the World Association of Detectives in 2017 in Bucharest, which was a rare moment of public recognition in a very private world. The case involved a high-profile international blackmail scheme targeting an individual at extreme personal and reputational risk. We uncovered the blackmailers, neutralised the threat, and restored the client’s safety and peace of mind. It was a complex operation involving digital forensics, covert surveillance, and cooperation with the UK police and is one of the most satisfying cases I’ve led. 
I’ve traced hidden assets across multiple jurisdictions in a contentious divorce… and exposed a romance scam that spanned two continents.
I find myself deeply affected by any case involving… vulnerable individuals. Especially young people at risk, survivors of abuse, or families desperate for answers. 
A Canadian family reached out in absolute distress… Their daughter had travelled to the UK to meet a man she’d only known via an online chatroom. She was over 18, so the authorities weren’t particularly responsive, despite growing concerns about her safety. The family feared she was being manipulated or held in a coercive environment. We stepped in, traced her location and quickly identified signs that she was in a highly vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation. Through sensitive and careful handling and liaising with the authorities, we were able to intervene, safeguard her and help facilitate a safe return. Afterwards, her family sent me a photo of them all reunited, smiling and hugging. That image is something I’ll never forget. It reminds me that what we do isn’t just investigative, it’s personal. These aren’t just cases; they’re people’s lives. 
Private investigation salaries can vary significantly… A newly qualified professional investigator might earn around £20-£30,000, often working irregular hours, subcontracting for agencies, or building up their own portfolio. Earnings can increase to more than £50,000. If you own your own agency, like I do with Conflict International, income potential becomes far greater. Running multi-jurisdictional investigations and serving high-net-worth clients or corporate entities can mean annual earnings stretching into six figures.
I regularly work over 60 hours a week… Operating globally means my phone rings at all hours. When a client calls from Dubai at midnight UK time, you need to answer. It’s not uncommon for me to jump on a flight the next day or manage multiple live cases across different time zones. That said, I do try to schedule three to four breaks a year, ideally somewhere quiet where I can get in lengthy cycles and switch off. But I’m never fully offline. It’s a lifestyle, not a 9-to-5 job.
The biggest misconception of being a private investigator is… That it is all action-packed, glamorous work, like something out of a James Bond film or a Sherlock Holmes novel. People imagine car chases, dramatic confrontations, or sitting in dark rooms connecting red string on cork boards. The reality is quite different. Most of the work is slow, deliberate, and detail-oriented. 
Some elements of the job match TV detectives… Like using disguises or running surveillance operations. But there’s far more legal compliance, GDPR navigation, and ethical decision-making than TV ever shows. We’re not vigilantes, we operate within strict legal frameworks, often under intense scrutiny.
We routinely turn down work that raises red flags… Sometimes it’s obvious: someone wants us to “follow” an ex-partner under suspicious circumstances, or they’re trying to use our services to gain leverage in a personal dispute without legal cause. We’ve had people ask us to access private messages, hack social media accounts, or “ruin someone’s life”.
There are a few things I sometimes dislike about my job… Chasing unpaid invoices is definitely one of them. We put in a huge amount of time, care, and specialist expertise into our work, often under immense pressure, so having to chase clients who go quiet once they’ve got what they need is not only frustrating but disheartening. But, sometimes, the hardest part is seeing the truth, knowing exactly what’s happening, but being unable to act due to legal limitations, jurisdictional issues, or a client’s decision not to pursue it. Despite all that, I wouldn’t change what I do. But yes, like any job, it comes with its shadows.
And we’re back! Welcome to another week in the Money blog. We’ve got loads of great content planned, so here’s a look at what’s coming up… 
Our regular What it’s really like to be a… feature will be published shortly. We’ve spoken to a private investigator, who tells us about using disguises, busting blackmails and how he tracks people down. 
Tomorrow, we tackle our latest Money Problem, helping a reader who has a capital gains issue after the death of a relative. 
There’ll be a focus on the economy on Wednesday when we get the latest inflation figures – we’ll explain what they mean for your money and bring you analysis from our experts. 
If you have a little one at home, it will be worth checking in on Thursday to read our Savings Guide special edition on how to make your baby a millionaire. 
We’ll have our Mortgage Guide on Friday, looking at what’s happening to rates and all the major product changes. 
Of course, there will also be all the latest consumer and personal finance news, along with our usual dose of tips, advice and features. 
If you enjoy our content, it’s worth signing up for our free Money newsletter.  Sign up below… 
AI has stolen £120,000 from Joe Turner.
The 38-year-old writer lost 70% of his clients to chatbots in two years.
His is one of 40 job roles that AI is fast replacing, according to conversations the Money team had with industry experts, researchers, and affected workers.
“It’s a betrayal,” says Turner, who earned six figures as a freelancer before the rise of generative AI.
“You’ve put your heart and soul into it for so long, and then you get replaced by a machine.”
He adds: “You always think ’it’s never going to happen to me’.”
Around 85% of the tasks involved in Turner’s job could be performed by AI, according to research published by Microsoft in July that has gone largely unnoticed.
The tech giant’s analysis of 200,000 conversations with its Co-Pilot chatbot concluded it could complete at least 90% of the work carried out by historians and coders, 80% of salespeople and journalists, and 75% of DJs and data scientists.
Also in the top 40 most exposed jobs were customer service assistants (72%), financial advisers (69%) and product promoters (62%). Search the table below to see how your role fares…
Speaking to the Money team, senior Microsoft researcher Kiran Tomlinson insists the study “explores which job categories can productively use AI chatbots, not take away or replace jobs”.
Turner for one doesn’t buy this. “That’s what they want to market it as,” he says.
Experts we spoke with were just as sceptical of Microsoft’s optimism.
‘Replaced entirely by the tool’
“If you were to look at these jobs in three to five years, there’s a very good chance they’ve been replaced entirely,” says an AI consultant with more than a decade of experience deploying the tech in nearly 40 companies.
“Except in areas where they are either relationship-driven or very judgmental,” they add, speaking on condition of anonymity due to their commercial relationships with a range of SMEs, multibillion-pound funds and public bodies.
“These types of jobs are by nature most likely to be replaced entirely by the tool,” agrees AI researcher Xinrong Zhu, an assistant professor at Imperial College London.
“We’re living in a world where we’re witnessing a very important turning point.”
It’s a verdict echoing job cuts announced by major companies over the summer.
Buy now, pay later firm Klarna shrunk its headcount by 40% due to investments in AI and a hiring freeze, while boasting its chatbot was doing the work of 700 employees.
Microsoft itself said it was laying off 15,000 employees while investing £69bn in data centres to train AI models and reportedly using AI to save $500m in its call centres.
Amazon chief executive Andy Jassy said he expected to “reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively”.
But don’t take this at face value, says the AI consultant. Just because AI will take jobs doesn’t mean it can right now: “I wouldn’t say AI is in a position that you can then generate layoffs immediately: What you tend to see in most businesses is hiring freezes.”
The UK hasn’t had a sharp decline in postings for the jobs most threatened by AI, but they grew four times slower than the least threatened jobs between 2019 and 2024, according to PwC’s AI jobs barometer.
“AI is being used as an excuse,” the consultant says.
“There’s a load of macroeconomic effects that are actually causing [job cuts].”
It’s the Money blog’s usual suspects: Increases to employer national insurance, the cost of hiring and the cost of energy – not an AI takeover.
But, they say, “that’s not to say it won’t happen next year.”
Some 78% of global businesses anticipate increasing their overall AI spending this fiscal year, a Deloitte survey found.
Approximately 40% of employers expect to reduce their workforce where AI can automate tasks, according to a World Economic Forum survey.
An email that changed everything
Freelancers may, then, be the canary in the coal mine.
Demand for gigs related to writing and coding fell by 21% within eight months of the release of ChatGPT, according to a study conducted last year by Zhu.
“The magnitude really surprised us,” she says.
It wouldn’t have surprised Turner.
A few months earlier, in December 2023, he received an email from a website where he’d worked for a decade.
“Do you ever use AI?” it read. “No,” he replied.
That was the last time he heard from them. Overnight, £30,000 was wiped from his annual income.
“I went on their website and I realised they had started using AI instead of me,” he says.
One by one, most of his other clients followed suit.
“It was just a complete desert,” he says of the job landscape.
If you listen to the heads of some leading AI companies, you’d be forgiven for thinking this desert is just one apocalyptic vista at the end of the working world as we know it.
Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, has warned AI could “wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs”, while OpenAI boss Sam Altman said entire job categories would be “totally, totally gone”.
“They want to glorify the models,” says Dr Fabian Stephany, a Labour economist at the University of Oxford and fellow at Microsoft’s independent AI Economy Institute.
Impersonating a big tech boss, he continues: “‘Oh wow, look, if we can automate away 50,000 people, then that technology must be really tremendous – so you should be investing in our company!’
“I would advocate to have a bit of more of a cooled down, pragmatic approach.
“Think about it as a technology and look at how technology has been interacting with the labour market in the past.”
Inventions that revolutionised the workplace
Take Richard Arkwright’s invention of the Spinning Jenny in 1769, which churned out huge quantities of yarn to make cloth in some of the first factories at the start of the industrial revolution.
While putting home weavers out of a job, it increased the need for mill workers hundreds of times over, says Stephany.
Henry Ford’s invention of the assembly line in 1913 had a similar impact when it reduced the time taken to make a car from 12.5 hours to 1.5 hours.
Speed lowered production costs and forecourt prices, increasing demand, sales and the number of staff hired to fulfil them.
For the same reason, the invention of the ATM in 1967 led to more bank teller jobs despite automating one of their key functions – something Microsoft was keen to point out.
“Our research shows that AI supports many tasks, particularly those involving research, writing and communication, but does not indicate it can fully perform any single occupation,” Microsoft’s Tomlinson says.
Indeed, the study shows 40 jobs where AI can perform just 10% or fewer tasks.
Tradespeople feature heavily, like painter-decorators (4%), cleaners (3%) and roofers (2%).
Surgical assistants (3%), ship engineers (5%) and nursing assistants (7%) also make the list.
But history also includes a list of the losers of technological innovation. 
Replacing horses with tractors wiped 3.4 billion man hours from American farmwork annually by 1960, according to research by economic historian Professor Alan Olmstead.
Spare a thought, too, for the pinsetters once responsible for stacking bowling alleys, who were more or less eliminated by the Automatic Pinspotter unveiled in 1946.
Quantity does not mean quality, either: Arkwright’s millers faced exhausting and repetitive 13-hour shifts in extreme noise, heat and dust.
How fulfilling would working with an AI be?
“Sterile and just not interesting, uniform and bleak and surface-level and hollow” is how Turner described its work after trying AI at the request of a client.
“Cars were a solution – a car was a horse that never got tired. But if you look at AI the same way, it’s basically saying: ‘There aren’t enough rubbish books out there, we need to make more.'”
More human work, not less?
That’s not what it’s for, though, says the AI consultant.
“I don’t see an AI right now coming up with wonderful ideas for creative writing authors,” they say.
But what it’s good at is taking an author’s idea and making a first draft extremely quickly, they explain.
“Now, does that mean we have fewer authors or does that mean we have more?”
The consultant’s optimism comes from seeing AI create extra human work at some of the companies that hired them.
A landscaping firm used ChatGPT to generate personalised services to upsell to existing customers.
At a pension provider with 350,000 scheme members, AI saved “literally thousands of hours” by scanning millions of notes, PDF documents and email chains for spousal support agreements.
That might seem like work stolen from a law firm at first glance, but it likely wouldn’t have been undertaken at all without AI due to the extreme cost of manual labour, says the consultant.
The cost of starting a digital business has also shrunk dramatically, he adds, if you use AI to organise a website, workflow, marketing and employment contracts.
“You end up in a world where you could have thousands more small start-ups because the cost of failure is so much lower.”
The ‘losers of technological change’
Such a positive attitude would do little to convince veteran audio producer Christian Allen, who has lost gigs worth £7,000 to AI in the past year.
“Hasn’t anyone seen Terminator for Christ’s sake?” says Allen, 53, whose work over the past two decades has been played on major radio stations like Classic FM and Heart FM.
“I think it could very easily take over.”
AI started by depleting requests for voiceovers in company training videos, but Allen recently lost a potential radio client who instead bought the first AI advert he’s ever heard that’s good enough for broadcast.
“It was scarily good,” says Allen, who lives near Birmingham. “No one would know.”
The cost to the client? £11.99. Voice actors would expect £1,000.
“There’s no way anybody can compete.”
Shifting sands forming another job desert? 
Not according to Oxford’s Labour economist Fabian Stephany, who was keen to “challenge the dystopian narrative”.
“It is very rare for a new technology to completely replace an entire profession,” says Stephany.
The only exceptions are jobs defined by a single task without any complexity, like bowling alley pinsetters or the translators at the top of Microsoft’s table, he says.
There’s complexity in Allen’s job, like creating video and TV soundtracks and mixing audio, but he’s still nervous.
“The AI subscription can mix for you too, so that’s production houses everywhere – we’re no longer needed. That’s quite scary.”
He adds: “I won’t be doing this in 10 years’ time.”
Microsoft researcher Kiran Tomlinson says AI “may prove to be a useful tool for many occupations” and “the right balance lies in finding how to use the technology in a way that leverages its abilities while complementing human strengths and accounting for people’s preferences”.
Alexa, tell me what the government is doing
In January, Sir Keir Starmer said there was “barely an aspect of our society that will remain untouched” by AI in the coming years.
The technology is mentioned at least 126 times in the government’s industrial strategy for the tech sector, focusing heavily on its potential benefits.
Insufficient attention is being paid to its disruption, says Zhu. Why is Microsoft publishing reports on job exposure, but not the government? Where is the guidance on how employers and employees should adapt?
“The government should play some important role here, and they’re not,” she says.
Recalling how laid-off steelworkers were left to fend for themselves in the 20th century, Stephany warns it is “crucial to not make the mistakes of the past again”.
Allen couldn’t agree more: “All jobs under threat of AI need to be protected. Because otherwise, how the hell do people earn money?”
The government says it is putting people “at the heart” of its AI plans.
“That includes partnerships with leading tech firms to help us deliver AI skills training to 7.5 million workers, and initiatives to bring digital skills and AI learning into classrooms and communities,” a spokesperson says.
“This will provide training to people of all ages and backgrounds and is backed by £187m.”
They say “thousands of jobs” will be created by AI Growth Zones, areas earmarked for AI data centres where the state will support big tech companies with access to power and planning.
What can you do for yourself?
Workers should be concerned if they’re not trying to use AI, says the consultant.
CVs with AI skills have so far been consistently favoured by a group of 2,000 recruiters observed by Fabian Stephany in an ongoing study.
“If a worker is willing to invest in their skill set, in developing their profile, they should not be worried at all,” they say.
Almost half (45%) of global employers consider AI competency to be a core skill, according to the World Economic Forum.
LinkedIn data shows AI-related skills on member profiles rose 65% year-on-year in 2024.
Job postings on Indeed.com containing AI terms have risen by 170% since the end of June 2023 – albeit from a low starting point (1.7% to 4.6% by 31 August).
“If you’re willing to learn skills that allow you to integrate AI into the job that you’re currently doing, you will probably not only be doing fine, but you might actually have a big career boost ahead of you,” Stephany adds.
In a separate study of 10 million job vacancies in the UK, he found jobs asking for AI skills paid 23% more – a salary boost greater than that expected from a master’s degree (20%).
The best starting point is creating a free account with AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, says the AI consultant.
“Log into one of them, provide it a pretty detailed description of who you are, what you do day-to-day, both in your job and potentially in your personal life, and ask it how it can help.
“Right now, that can mean that you do your job better, which gets you promoted.”
Or maybe not.
In the past few months, writer Joe Turner has seen some clients make a sheepish return.
“I see an influx of new jobs coming in and people are now requesting no AI content at all,” he says.
Clients have found its hollow tropes and generic mannerisms carry the unmistakable mark of a “soulless machine”.
“It’s called AI, but it’s not artificial intelligence. It’s just a database of words with reasoning models,” he concludes.
“It puts the words in the right order, but at the end of the day, it means nothing.” 
Is AI affecting your job? Let us know your stories in the comments box. And if you enjoyed this feature, why not sign up to our Money newsletter to get weekend reads and money saving tips every Friday…
Three big stories have dominated our coverage in the Money blog this week.
We learned more than 14 million drivers could get an average of £700 compensation over the car finance scandal…
…we’ve had updates on new EU travel rules which take effect on Sunday…
…and retailers have begun implementing new restrictions on the promotion of high sugar foods – much to the dismay of some on social media…
The Money blog isn’t just about news, and two longer reads that cut through this week were…
Scroll back through the week for loads more tips and features – and check out our long read on the 40 jobs most under threat from AI, and 40 that can’t be touched, on Saturday morning.
We’ll be back with live updates on Monday.
On the same theme as our last post (saving drivers money), did you know that a very simple mistake could be leaving a dent in your bank balance…
Research by What Car? suggests motorists may be forking out an extra £150 each year if their tyres are under-inflated by just one bar (14.5psi).
The car-buying website conducted lab tests of three identical sets of tyres, each inflated to a different level.
For each test, all four tyres were at the same pressure level and fitted to an Audi A3 running on a 1.5-litre petrol engine.
What Car? calculated the under-inflated tyres would cost an extra £1.50 worth of petrol for every 100 miles.
That can be scaled up to an annual mileage of 10,000, amounting to an extra £150 spent on fuel.
As well as the financial cost, experts say there are safety implications to driving with too little air in a tyre.
Further reading
You can read our complete guides to car finance, buying a second-hand car and what you can do if you buy a dud here…
It’s often said drivers should avoid getting fuel at lunchtime or 5pm – as high demand leads to higher prices – and instead aim for early mornings or late evenings.
Another suggestion is that fuel is cheaper at night because it’s colder and fuel expands in cooler conditions.
But do these claims stand up?
“There’s not really any good evidence that shows it’s cheaper to refuel at night,” the RAC told us.
First, any temperature difference would have a negligible impact on your wallet; and second, timing your visit around fuel delivery times rather than quiet periods is more likely to affect price.
“Changes in the price of fuel at a forecourt will happen after there has been a delivery of fuel that is cheaper or more expensive than the stock in the tank,” Luke Bosdet, fuel price spokesman at the AA, said.
But deliveries don’t just happen in the evening.
If you do want to time filling up to save cash, price updates provided to the competition watchdog’s transparency scheme have to be made by 12pm each day, so it may be better to wait until then to get a full picture of prices near you.
There are plenty of websites and apps that list prices at your local petrol stations – we looked at petrolprices.com on Thursday, using a postcode in Enfield for illustrative purposes, and found a 7p difference for a litre of unleaded between different local stations.
Four furniture retailers have been criticised for using “sneaky” pricing tactics that in some cases have caused shoppers to spend more money. 
Very, Furniture Village, 247 Blinds and Blinds Direct were flagged by Which? after an investigation found examples of “potentially misleading” was/now sale labels. 
The labels are used by retailers to help customers compare the discounted price with the previous price of the product to see how much they are saving. 
But Which? found the shops were displaying products with a “was” price that hadn’t been used for several weeks, leading people to believe they were getting better savings. 
Here’s a look at some of the deals uncovered… 
Very
Up to 75% of sale items at the online-only retailer were found to have inflated “was” prices. 
In May, it put its Rubberwood dining set on sale with a “was” price of £349 and a “now” price of £299, which would make shoppers believe they were saving £50. 
But, the set hadn’t been sold at £349 since 3 March, and was available for just £199 two weeks before the sale was launched. 
Furniture Village 
Around 32% of sales products were found to have similar intervening prices. 
In February, its Dolce dining set was labelled “Was £2,349, Now £1,795”. 
However, between 8 January and 2 February, the set was sold at £2,095 – £254 less than the advertised “was” price. 
While shoppers might have thought they were saving £554 on the product, they were saving just £300 compared to the previous month, Which? found.
247 Blinds
A huge 99% of sale items here had one or more intervening prices, according to Which?
The price of their Prairie Horses blind was changed five times between December and February – all with the same “was price”.  
On 2 February, this blind was labelled “Was £105.66, Now £103.88” – but it hadn’t been sold at this higher price since the beginning of December, and had recently been sold at just £79.25. 
Blinds Direct
Blinds Direct labels its sales differently to other retailers. 
It labels products with a reference price with a strike through, and a percentage-off discount. 
Which? found that 60% of sale items used “struck through reference prices” for longer than they were actually sold at those prices.
Between September 2024 and April 2025, the Whiston blind at Blinds Direct was sold at £122.31 for less than two months in total. 
However, also during that period, it was on sale with £122.31 shown as a struck through price for a total of almost five months. 
“We’re concerned these examples could make shoppers think they are getting a better deal than they are,” Which? said. 
“We’ve shared our results with the Competition and Markets Authority and we’re calling on businesses to change their practices to put a stop to dodgy pricing.” 
What does the CMA say? 
CMA guidance states that for a price comparison to be genuine, the “was” price must be the one offered immediately before the discount begins.
This guidance is targeted at online mattress sellers, but the CMA says it will also be taken into account when it considers enforcement action in other sectors.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute also says that it may not consider price comparisons to be genuine if the “was” price is not the most recent price at which the product was sold.
What did the companies say? 
Very said its teams work hard to keep prices up to date.
“Prices for many items can fluctuate based on market trends, such as the launch of major promotions or new models. We are continually exploring new ways to enhance our pricing and promotional practices to ensure customers can shop with confidence,” it added. 
Furniture Village said it was committed to “fair and transparent pricing” and works in “close alignment with our Primary Authority to ensure our pricing practices are compliant and not misleading”.
“The Dolce dining set example cited by Which? does not reflect our standard pricing approach as the product was discontinued in June 2025 and marked down in line with our usual clearance process as we sold through remaining overstocks,” it added. 
Blinds Direct said it was committed to ensuring its pricing was “clear, fair and transparent”. 
“We thank Which? for informing us of their upcoming article referencing pricing on [the Whiston blind], where a percentage discount promotion applied only to orders over £49. While this promotion is intended to provide additional value for our customers, we recognise that this example highlights an area that could be improved. We will investigate this promptly and make any changes necessary,” it added. 
247 Blinds didn’t provide a comment to Which? or the Money blog.
As referenced in our Mortgage Guide this morning, rumours have been circulating about the changes the chancellor will have to make in her 26 November budget to raise revenues and balance the books. 
Analysts believe that it’s highly likely some taxes will be increased to fill a budget shortfall. 
Despite the government promising not to raise taxes paid by working people, an economic thinktank has told Rachel Reeves that putting up income tax would have the “least damaging effect” on the economy.
An increase in income tax might hurt consumer spending and reduce incentives to work, but because it is paid by so many people, only a 1 percentage point hike would be needed, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said.
An equivalent increase in VAT would have the worst impact on the economy in the short term, hitting personal disposable income by nearly 3% and reducing GDP by almost 1% in the first year, it added. 
It would also push up inflation more than the other levers because of the impact it would have on prices in shops.
Raising corporation tax – which is charged on the profits made by businesses – would have a smaller short-term impact but drag on the economy in the long run by reducing investment, it said.
The scenarios in NIESR’s analysis are based on the assumption that the government aims to raise total net annual revenue by £30bn by 2029-30.
This is how much Reeves needs to raise to fill an estimated black hole in the public finances.
Ed Cornforth, NIESR economist and main author of the analysis, said: “Our analysis clearly shows that a rise in income tax is the chancellor’s least damaging, most reliable option for putting the economy on a sustainable, secure footing.
“Although it is politically unsavoury, avoiding raising income tax will force the Chancellor’s hand into worse options – tinkering around the edges simply won’t shift the dial.”
Here, our economics and data editor Ed Conway explains why Reeves is in no position to calm budget nerves…
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free

source