For anyone fascinated by the world of money, may I suggest two books worthy of reading. They're gripping, not too long and can be devoured over a lazy weekend.

The first is Gino's Contraband: Guilty Until Proven Innocent, by Gabrielle O'Donovan, a 55-year-old change management expert.

Gabrielle, who now lives in St Albans, Hertfordshire, contacted me after I wrote an article last month on customer service chaos at HM Revenue & Customs.

With no disrespect to the many readers who contacted me with their own stories of traumatic HMRC experiences, Gabrielle's battle with the government department (as described in her book) is on a different level.

For nigh on four years, she had to convince HMRC that she was not the perpetrator of a massive VAT fraud based around the illegal importation of contraband cigarettes seized by Border Police at Heathrow Airport in 2019.

Lesser people, including myself, would have been worn down by HMRC's attempt to blame Gabrielle for a crime she did not commit. She only became embroiled because her home address was used by the criminals – initial HMRC correspondence sent to her address was marked for the attention of 'Gino' at 'Miki National Co Ltd', and all subsequent correspondence named him too.

Along the way, Gabrielle was sent a VAT demand for £88,034; was horrified to discover her name on an HMRC online list of 'deliberate tax defaulters' known as the 'name-and-shame' list (subsequently removed with a letter of apology sent to her); only to receive four months later a bankruptcy warning letter demanding £132,711, payable within ten days.

It was only in May 2023 that HMRC acknowledged it had been pursuing the wrong person and removed her details from the case permanently.

Although HMRC has since apologised to Gabrielle for wrongly issuing her with a bankruptcy letter – and admitted her home address had been 'hijacked' – it has not said sorry for wrongly targeting her in the first place and putting her name and address on its name and shame list. Its offer of compensation is nothing short of derisory. Understandably, she has rejected it. Constituency MP Daisy Cooper is demanding answers from HMRC.

As someone who is an expert in helping businesses implement organisational change, maybe HMRC should seek advice from Gabrielle on how it can become a government department that is fit for purpose and customer-centric. The book ends with a chapter of recommendations for HMRC reform. Its bosses should read it.

As Gabrielle told me on Friday: 'HMRC is out of control.'

The second money book is Trading Game, from former City trader Gary Stevenson, which I devoured last weekend. It's a riveting read which stirred inside me a mix of emotions.

Marvel at the way Gary came from a humble background to become one of Citigroup's most successful traders while the world spilled into financial crisis (2008).

Rage at the greed of those who bet fortunes on behalf of their City employers irrespective of the consequences of their actions on the world's financial system – a form of financial gambling where the winners won big and everyone else (even those not involved in the bet – you and me) lost.

And sadness (with a bit of admiration on top) at Gary's refusal to enjoy the fruits of his success – while failing to establish any bond with those he either worked with (understandable given most were detestable) or met outside of London's Canary Wharf (Gary wasn't good at building relationships).

Both books are available online. Entertaining, for sure. But they will make you seethe with anger.

UK's message to Reeves: Hands off our cash Isas

Despite Rachel Reeves' pledge last week not to scrap cash Isas, there are fears she will drastically reduce the £20,000 tax free annual allowance for savers.

According to insiders at a meeting last Wednesday between investment bigwigs and the Chancellor, the annual cash Isa allowance could shrink as low as £4,000 as she encourages the nation (young and old) to eschew cash in favour of investing.

Before confirming such a drastic cut, I trust Rachel Reeves takes on board latest consumer research conducted on behalf of the Building Societies Association and exclusively given today to Wealth. The research, by pollster Opinium, confirms widespread antipathy to Isas becoming more investment focused. Some 73 per cent of UK adults with cash Isas are either against the plans being scrapped or the annual allowance being reduced.

In addition, nine in ten cash Isa savers say it is crucial that they get back at least the amount they save or invest.

Robin Fieth, BSA chief executive, told me: 'We will continue to press the Chancellor not to reduce the amount hard-working people can save in cash Isas – a cut that would undermine the success of these accounts which are valued by so many savers.'

Chancellor, as Money Mail has been saying for the last two weeks: 'Hands off our cash Isas.'

Why should we pay to clean up Thames mess? 

For the time being, indebted Thames Water lives to fight another day, but many customers are unhappy with the price they are paying for helping it clear up its mess (both financial and pollution-wise).

Water regulator Ofwat has granted Thames Water the right to push up prices by 35 per cent over the next five years. Yet the company wanted 54 per cent and has appealed against Ofwat's decision to the Competition & Markets Authority.

The 35 per cent increase means the average annual bill that customers pay will jump from £436 (in the current year ending this April) to £588 for the year starting April 2029. If Thames wins its appeal, they will rise to £667.

Worryingly, some customers tell me that they will be paying more than 35 per cent immediately.

For example, Peter Brown, from Swanley in Kent, says his monthly bill is going up by 39 per cent in April. On Friday, he told me: 'It seems Thames Water is taking the price increase that Ofwat has allowed it straight away.' It's a view shared by Duncan Ferret (not his real surname). He sent me a spreadsheet detailing the impact of the price rises on households who pay for their water by meter. Taking into account the increase in fixed charges and the higher 'volumetric' charges, he calculated the increase in overall bills for customers using four different levels of water usage.

Like Peter, he discovered that increases in the next billing year are above 35 per cent, ranging from 37 to 48 per cent – with those using the lowest amount of water incurring the highest percentage increases. Duncan told me: 'It doesn't seem right that Thames Water is taking its permitted increase in the first year rather than spreading it over five years. Sadly, as domestic customers, we are over a barrel because we can't switch supplier.'

I look at Thames Water's huge head office in Reading five days a week when commuting to and from work (it dominates the town's skyline) and count my blessings.

'Thank God I'm not a customer,' I mutter to myself. So far, fellow passengers have yet to contradict me.