We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Bankruptcy should not be for life - Your support is needed!
Comments
-
CitySlicker wrote: »I find much of this to be unfair and unfounded. For instance, the bankrupt I'm assisting right now is a far safer risk post bankruptcy than pre bankruptcy as they have put the brakes firmly on, been able to identify where problems happened, identify why they happened (and incidently the problems were caused by an unreputable employer's actions and were not recklessly incurred); then build up a firm layer of savings to ensure similar problems can never happen again.
They are a "safer risk" post bankrupcy because they're now no longer able to get credit and so have had the "brakes" put on for them. If they had put them on themselves bedforehand, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in the position that they are in now?In a position of finance, I would sooner invest in a person who can demonstrate a savings cushion than someone with a dozen credit cards running up reckless shopping bills but who has never been bankrupt.
So would I. Plus I'd also prefer not to invest in someone who had gone bankrupt on their creditors in the past.
I find your comment about rules being rules just bizarre. A lender cannot ask if you are gay or black for instance as this is illegal discrimination. They cannot make rules up as they go along. If legislation is passed saying they must not ask the question, then they must not ask the question!
No such legislation is going to be passed. It's in any lenders interest to know such information, and rightfully so.In relation to spent convictions I didn't say all in every circumstance. You may wish to read the Rehabilitation of Offenders act 1974, but aside from this you've missed the point. Many offences that do not require a declaration are far worse than bankruptcy yet once they're spent in many cases that is the matter done and dusted.
I don't need to read the act thanks. And you forgot to add "in my opinion" to your third sentence. When it comes to lending money, many lenders are not going to care about an unrelated conviction that happened say 15 years ago. Bankrupcy though is not unrelated and it is very much in the lender's interest to know about it when assessing the risk of whether their money is safe with the client or not.Sadly I feel you are just here for an argument and are a reactionary, so I believe these words will fall on deaf ears. Bankrupts need guidance and can prove with their actions they are safe risks, they do not need people to judge and make carte blanche statements based on prejudice.
What are you going on about?
"One day I realised that when you are lying in your grave, it's no good saying, "I was too shy, too frightened."
Because by then you've blown your chances. That's it."0 -
CitySlicker wrote: »Some comparison sites ask this routinely, and companies such as Budget also ask the question. If the comparison website does not ask, it often appears in the final quote just ahead of purchase.
Some sites perhaps.
But you didn't answer the question, what difference does it make to the quote?
the quote I tried didn't even ask the question so I'm confused as to what impact it has irl?"One day I realised that when you are lying in your grave, it's no good saying, "I was too shy, too frightened."
Because by then you've blown your chances. That's it."0 -
I agree with you when you say you wouldn't be happy if you had lost money to a bankrupt. I certainly wouldn't (and have done) but then I would also take some responsibility for lending money to them in the first place. My father taught me never to lend money, only to give. What you are prepared to give is less than what you would lend. If you get it back, then great. If you don't, well you never expected it back so nothing lost. I think banks need to take 'some' responsibility for irresponsible lending.
I doubt anyone who has been through a bankruptcy, would really want to do it again. I certainly wouldn't.
You don't make any sense!
You want banks to take more responsibilty through "responsible lending" but then in the same breath you want to remove some of their powers of investigation into what risk a client could potentially be?
And then if they get some of the money back, well, all well and good , they should be grateful? "One day I realised that when you are lying in your grave, it's no good saying, "I was too shy, too frightened."
Because by then you've blown your chances. That's it."0 -
They are a "safer risk" post bankrupcy because they're now no longer able to get credit and so have had the "brakes" put on for them. If they had put them on themselves bedforehand, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in the position that they are in now?
Interesting assumptions you make... Personally I didn't increase my borrowing at all over the last 18 months, as I knew it would be a stupid thing to do. Unfortunately my business needed to fold (I could have borrowed more - it was an option! - but I decided that would be stupid), as a result I could no longer service my debt, hence BR.
As you can see, I put the brakes on ages ago and they are still firmly on. If I wanted loads of money my OH still has massive credit lines open - We could have used them previously but that would have been foolish.
I would imagine 60-70% of bankrupts would be far better with their money post-BR as they wouldn't want to go through it again!
Have a little think before you post again - Not everything is black and white...“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)0 -
They are a "safer risk" post bankrupcy because they're now no longer able to get credit and so have had the "brakes" put on for them. If they had put them on themselves bedforehand, perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in the position that they are in now?
So would I. Plus I'd also prefer not to invest in someone who had gone bankrupt on their creditors in the past.
No such legislation is going to be passed. It's in any lenders interest to know such information, and rightfully so.
I don't need to read the act thanks. And you forgot to add "in my opinion" to your third sentence. When it comes to lending money, many lenders are not going to care about an unrelated conviction that happened say 15 years ago. Bankrupcy though is not unrelated and it is very much in the lender's interest to know about it when assessing the risk of whether their money is safe with the client or not.
What are you going on about?
O it must be so nice to be up your own a r se, I just hope it happens to you then come on here and critise people for going on spending trips
you no nothingSealed Pot Number 018 🎄2009..£950.50 🎄2010..£256 🎄 2011..£526 🎄2012..£548.80 🎄2013...£758.88🎄2014...£510 🎄2015...£604.78 🎄2016...£704.50 🎄2017...£475 🎄2018...£1979.12 🎄2019...£408.88🎄2020...£1200.63...🎄2021…£588 🎄2022 £672… 🎄2023 £3,783.90 🎄2024…£3,882.57🎄2025…£4083.🎄20260 -
You don't make any sense!
You want banks to take more responsibilty through "responsible lending" but then in the same breath you want to remove some of their powers of investigation into what risk a client could potentially be?
I had banks throwing cash at me despite the low chances of me being able to repay them - BR saved them and me money!
Open your eyes - You may actually learn something! :cool:“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)0 -
As I mentioned, my arguments are certainly falling on deaf ears.
In post 32, your first paragraph indicates your prejudiced views that all bankrupts are to blame despite me pointing out the specifics of a case I'm working closely on being totally out of the person's hands, and the fault of an unscrupulous employer.
So if you had credit and was self employed, then sudden illness caused your business to collapse, is that reckless? If you have been unfairly dismissed and had a small bank loan that was easily manageable, yet interest compounded and the bank wouldn't listen, is that reckless? Unfortunately no argument on this point will be heard by you as you have built up a prejudice you're clearly not willing to address so I don't intend to continue responding to this point, I'm sure others will.
A lot of financial questions used to be common but are no longer so. Simply because you say legislation will not be passed does not mean that's it. That is the point of the entire thread.
If you have read previous posts and others comments, you would be quite aware the question has an impact on the policy price of insurance for many companies, and affects the bottom line price for many.
As it stands, you believe I forgot to add 'in my opinion' to a particular sentence. You forgot to add that to any of your posts at all. I find it so sad a person is clearly on a thread to disrupt it, within a board that states this site is not for judgement, yet you have your cap and gabble quite ready to hand down sentences obviously.0 -
Some sites perhaps.
But you didn't answer the question, what difference does it make to the quote?
the quote I tried didn't even ask the question so I'm confused as to what impact it has irl?
If you are confused why don't you just go on to another thread. If you're not bankrupt and don't intend on being bankrupt what does it matter to you about the insurance and what are you doing posting on a 'living with bankruptcy' forum?
Bye!
:j :j
0 -
being totally out of the person's hands,
I agree.
Any help, opinions, views I may hold those are my own. Respect them as you would expect the same in return. Offered freely, is gleaned from a lifetime of experiences, knowledge gaining. Passed on to benefit others. I may be direct, ask you questions but those are to help you. Up to you if you choose to take it. I won't judge you either way.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards