A chance for all bankrupts to change your life - Your help needed!

fiveyearplan

peachyprice wrote: »

Ok, I've got a reply from my MP, who passed my letter on to the Minister For Business and Regulatory Reform, who basically said tough titties, the Government have done enough with the 2004 reform, the info will stay published in the Gazette because it always has, business have a right to choose who they deal with and where they gather information from. Oh and we should be grateful because BR used to be recorded on credit files for 15 years.

The Minister also wrote to the FSA before replying to my MP regarding insurance companies, FSA said it's not up to them to tell insurance companies who they should and shouldn't to business with, the insurance companies have a right to ask about BR before they decide to insure people.

This is a much abridged version of the 4 page reply, if anyone wants to read the whole thing PM me your email addy and I'll scan it for you.

Did he address the comparison with convicted criminals - that they don't have to declare their past once their conviction is spent? How is this any different?

The_Watchman_2

business have a right to choose who they deal with and where they gather information from

Personally I think you’re attacking this from the wrong angle, I actually can agree with the above, although the ‘forever’ bit is debatable.

But that does not back up the argument it must be available to everyone, nor every business for that matter.

If a business was to give you a line of credit, then it is in there interest to know.

But if you where buying a pound of carrots from Asda, do they have the right, or need, to know about your past to make a decision whether or not to do business with you?

So why does it have to be available to all, surly it would be a simple task to keep a register that is only available to those business’s that need to know for risk assessment?

That brings me to insurance companies, they do need to know, as they offer payment by instalment’s, but is it ethical for them to use that information to charge double? That would depend if the risk is higher, and by charging more they are implying it is, the question you should be asking is there any foundation to this implied higher risk.

NewStart09

As a criminal you records are only held 10 years - than erased

If you make a claim on your car insurance or have an accident 5 years

your credit rating can be clean in 6 years

What than justifies saying that since someone was in financial crisis 6 years ago mean that they are still a risk.

It really does not add up, we are being discriminated against!

NewStart09

The_Watchman_2

The answer to that is not the Government as such, but the House of Lords that has the final say.

As most where around in the era of debtor’s prisons, I would think the reason was self explanatory (that was a joke…….well sort of)

fiveyearplan

Well, if we had gone to a debtors' prison then presumably our convictions would be spent and we wouldn't have to declare?

The_Watchman_2

fiveyearplan wrote: »

Well, if we had gone to a debtors' prison then presumably our convictions would be spent and we wouldn't have to declare?

I am not a historian, so may be wrong, but I think as most probably left in a box, no.

gj195

Hello, just a quick... BUMP!

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Nicely timed. European Parliament has been sitting since 10 September, so I've sent this email to all those I was corresponding with back in August -

European Parliament has been sitting now for a little over two weeks. I appreciate this makes me a little forward in my request, as I am familiar with how hectic the first few weeks of a new session can be, but would appreciate any update on my issue you can provide to me?

Others may wish to do the same if you have been writing to your MEP. For information, the House of Commons reconvenes on 12 October, so realistically it is a bit early to be pestering MP's yet (unless you wanted to email your MP to advise you are aware the new session is about to start very shortly and can they advise you how they intend to use the session to support this issue perhaps?)

gj195

How spooky, after my bump yesterday while at work i went home to find a letter on my door mat from my MP :T (been at OH's the past few nights, hence getting mail on a sunday!).

My Mp, Chris Mullen has forwarded my letter to Lord Myners on the 25 Sept. His cover letter:

Please find enclosed a letter i have recieved from my constituent Ms GJ195 of *A house in england!* regarding discharged bankrupts.

The contents are self-explanatory. As you will see she suggests that the insurance companies be forbidden by law to ask if any person in the same property has previously been bankrupted.

I would be grateful for your comments.

Chris Mullen MP

For the original letter i used the one on page 2 of this thread from wayforward (thanks again). It's a great template to work with.

So i await for a reply....

wayforward_2

Have just received a very lengthy answer from a Green Party MEP!

" [FONT=&quot]Thank you for your recent email calling for a change in UK law with regards to discharged bankrupts. Caroline has asked me to respond on her behalf and I am sorry for the delay in doing so.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As an MEP, Caroline expertise lies in EU law and we are not aware of any restrictions that would prevent a change to UK legislation. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On the question of insurance, the EU Gender Directive requires insurers to justify publicly (with reference to objective data) why if they charge men and women different rates. However, the EU has not legislated in any way to force insurance companies to operate any specific rules with regard to bankrupts. In other areas insurers have agreed to follow a code of practice. For example, in July 2008, the Association of British Insurers (ABI), which is an industry body, published a statement of best practice for HIV and insurance. This includes, for example, insurers not asking about sexual orientation and not taking into account occupation when assessing HIV risk. However, the code does allow them to ask questions about risky sexual behaviour and travel to areas of the world with high incidences of HIV. They can ask for an HIV test provided they have a clear policy setting out with reasons when they will ask an applicant to do so. The code largely seeks to ensure insurers do not ask for unnecessary or irrelevant personal information. There may be scope to extend this code to include restrictions on questions about discharged bankruptcy but that would not require legislation and could potentially be achieved by lobbying the ABI directly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Caroline’s sense is that it is reasonable for any insurer to take account of any factor that genuinely affects risk in pricing it. She is not best placed to determine the nature of that risk. Certainly forbidding insurers from taking account of a genuine risk could distort insurance pricing and result in what would effectively amount to cross subsidising between different policy holders, with higher premiums than at present being charged to people who have no connection with bankruptcy.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The issue of whether bankruptcy should be removed from the records (with no need to declare it) after 6 years is a different question, largely unconnected with insurance. If such legislation were passed then it would simply mean that insurers would have less data. It might increase the cross-subsidy between policyholders as above, but probably to a less significant degree as people would still be marked as bankrupt for six years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When comparing practices for discharge of bankruptcy in other countries, we should also compare the consequences of going into bankruptcy. For example, if the consequences of bankruptcy were harsh in other countries, but relatively light in the UK then - for consistency - it might be reasonable to have different periods before the slate were wiped clean.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Caroline certainly doesn’t want people who are bankrupt (or have a bankrupt partner) to be treated unfairly, but as the issues around this are quite complex she believes they need further analysis. This is not something the Green Party has looked at closely in the past so Caroline appreciates you making her aware of the problem. She would also strongly suggest that you lobby your MP about this matter as she does not believe it can be addressed at EU level and she has no influence over government policy."[/FONT]