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

boseboy03

Just before christmas I thought I would fire off a few of the drafted email/letters to some of the MP's etc just to see if any of them actually paid any attention to their constituents.

Well blow me down I received some responses :shocked:

Here's some of those that I received :-

Reply 1.

Sent to : Cllr Claire Smith

Dear Mr. H***********,

Thank you for your e-mail. It does raise a very important and unfair problem. As it is a matter of national law, it would be better if you contacted your MP Sir John Butterfill, to see if he could raise this in parliament.

Kind regards,

Claire

Reply 2.

Sent to : William (The Earl of) Dartmouth MEP

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Mr H*************,

Lord Dartouth thanks you for your e-mail but this a matter for UK domestic legislation so we would refer you to your MP.

Malcolm Wood

Political Assistant


Reply 3.

Sent to : [/FONT]Ashley Fox MEP

Dear Mr H*********,

Thank you for your email of 24 December 2009.

There are currently three Conservative MEPs covering the South West of
England and in order to try to avoid duplication and confusion when
dealing with constituents queries we have divided the region
geographically. The current split we are using is:

Giles Chichester MEP: Cornwall and Devon to include Plymouth and Torbay

Julie Girling MEP: Gloucestershire and Somerset to include South
Gloucestershire, North Somerset and BANES

Ashley Fox MEP: Bristol, Wiltshire and Dorset to include Swindon,
Bournemouth and Poole.

We all share responsibility for Gibraltar.

As you live in Bournemouth, Dorset, Ashley Fox is the MEP who will be
dealing with your enquiry and will respond in due course.

I hope this is acceptable to you.

Yours sincerely

Linda Robbins
PA to Julie Girling

So some rather standard email replies that I thought at least they replied considering it was 24th December an all that.

However just this morning I recieved a written response in House of Commons stationary.

Reply 4.

Sent to : MP John Butterfill

Dear Mr H***********,

Thank you for your email of the 24th December with regard to UK legislation on discharged bankrupts.

I have taken up the points you have made with the relevant minister at HM Treasury and I shall, of course, let you know her response as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

John Butterfill




So good to see that at the very least those that act for us are paying some attention to our needs and perhaps one day some action will be taken to stop us all being criminalized in the eyes of insurance companies etc.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Some developments here too.

My MEP has been talking to Andrew Laing, who is the Assistant Commissioner - Head of Casework at the Information Commisioner's Office. He writes -

As you will be aware, the Information Commisioner oversees and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The DPA has eight principles of 'good data handling'. These give people specific rights in relation to their personal information and put certain obligations on those organisations that are responsible for processing it.

In your letter, you explained that the normal practice of Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs) is to keep people's financial records, including those about bankruptcies, on file for six years. You asked whether the publication of bankruptcy records in the London Gazette and the permanent retention of that information is likely to contravene the requirements of the DPA.

The fifth principle of the DPA says that data controllers (organisations responsible for processing personal data) should not hold personal data for longer than is necessary for the purpose for which they obtained it. The DPA does not define what is meant by 'necessary' and as such it is the responsibility of each data controller to determine how long they will need to retain the personal data they process, based on business need, statutory obligations or other requirements.

As you point out, the law requires the notification of personal bankruptcies in the London Gazette. Section 34 of the DPA provides an exemption from certain parts of the DPA, including the general non-disclosure provisions and the fifth principle, where the data consists of information that the data controller is required by any enactment to make available to the public. As such, the bankruptcy information published in the London Gazette is not subject to the general non-disclosure or retention provisions of the DPA.

The matter regarding CRAs is of course quite different. We understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years. At the time, this was already the practice common to some of the major CRAs.

The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made, but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 (the predecessor to the current Act) by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

As the preceding six years of an individual's credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed, this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information, the CRAs would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

ENDS

I have replied saying in essence, if CRAs are in this position, surely exactly the same principle applies to insurers. What do others think?

As an aside, I have had a reply from Neil Hamilton who is not aware insurers penalise discharged bankrupts. I am about to let him know there are many major ones, but if people could give me lists that would help. I am aware Go Compare asks people, as do the AA and Budget Insurance.

property.advert

Requesting insurance also brings into question the need to disclose any facts which the applicant should disclose, whether asked or not. It may therefore be an issue if a claim was made and the full facts of the BR came to light, that the claim could be refused, on the grounds that the applicant should have informed the insurance company that they were once BR.

I would be very interested to know how those companies applying a premium for insurance products when either the applicant or someone residing in the same property or perhaps even a named driver was previously BR, arrived at their increased premium amount. Does data on the propensity of former BR to make claims or defraud insurers exist ?

tentpole_2

a really nice post

Holes_in_my_pocket

I will send a few emails of too.

With regards to car insurance i have a motability car which includes insurance wonder why the bankruptcy question doesnt get asked in my and many others situation.

Seems obvious to me that insurance companies as many other finacial organisations are exploiting us debt free people .

Maybe they realise not given bankrupts credit they lose out on interest payments, so hike the premiums up to compensate.

So_Sad_Angel

CitySlicker wrote: »

I have replied saying in essence, if CRAs are in this position, surely exactly the same principle applies to insurers. What do others think?

As an aside, I have had a reply from Neil Hamilton who is not aware insurers penalise discharged bankrupts. I am about to let him know there are many major ones, but if people could give me lists that would help. I am aware Go Compare asks people, as do the AA and Budget Insurance.

Well done Cityslicker....I was very interested in your post there ...thankyou.

Just quoted last bit to see if anyone can add anymore insurance companies to the `penalise BR` list.

*MF*

Laws, such as those about what you have to disclose to an Insurer, are reviewed by the Law Commission (in England) and the Scottish Law Commission.

Just this month, both Bodies submitted their report on this very issue - it is 200 pages long, but here is an opening extract, which summarises how they want to see the law changed: (Red items by me)

The Law Commission
and
The Scottish Law Commission

CONSUMER INSURANCE LAW:
PRE-CONTRACT DISCLOSURE
AND MISREPRESENTATION
Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord Chancellor
and Secretary of State for Justice
by Command of Her Majesty
Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers
December 2009

The existing law, as set out in the Marine Insurance Act 1906,1 requires a
consumer to volunteer information to insurers. It is clearly important that insurers receive the information they need to assess risks. Information from policyholders is often the basis of underwriting decisions on whether to accept risks at all, and if so, at what price and on what terms. However, it is now generally accepted that insurers should ask consumers for the information they want to know. The law needs to be updated to correspond to the realities of a mass consumer market.

1.3 Our draft Bill replaces the duty to volunteer information with a duty on consumers to take reasonable care to answer the insurer’s questions fully and accurately. Where a consumer makes a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation, our draft Bill permits the insurer to treat the contract as if it did not exist, and refuse all claims. Where the consumer answers questions carelessly, it provides the insurer with a proportionate remedy. However the consumer who acts both honestly and carefully is protected.

1.4 These ideas are not new. They reflect the approach already taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and generally accepted good practice within the industry. However, our reforms would make the law simpler and clearer, allowing both insurer and insured to know their rights and obligations.

All 200 pages here: :eek:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc319.pdf

out_of_cash

i am going to contact my mp again and ask him how he thinks that this is not a problem in the real world,i am of the view that they are trying some revenge tactic isnt there some kind of defamation of character with them saying oh you was bankrupt once and because of that your scum bags and we will charge you double the normal premiums "isnt that what got a lot of people here in the first place.

cityslicker isnt there some kind of campaign we can start regarding this insurance scam.AA have lost my vote i will adopt the same attitude to them as we wont all be skint for life.


regards to all

ooc. happy 2010

boseboy03

Problem is that out of 8283 views only 27 people have even taken the time to vote to state that they have written to their MP. We Brits etc have become so apathetic and accept most poo that is thrown our way, we used to be a bloody good country that fought for what we believed in. However most now capitulate, sad times.

GoingForBroke

Just spent the last hour reading some of the posts in this thread!

Great effort, Cityslicker and all else who have written to MPs etc. You have inspired me to get in touch with my MP!

I haven't managed to get through every single post so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested making this thread a sticky???