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

blind-as-a-bat_2

Thats very promising CitySlicker, at last an MP has not just dismissed it, and the ICO are staying open on the subject, where it will lead will depend on the insurers responces, assuming they respond.

But that responce from the ICO is promising, if they can not justify it, which there has to be a point when they can not, which is what the ICO implies.

Fingers crossed:)

blind-as-a-bat_2

PS Working this into the email somewhere in some form may be a good idea,

Whilst we would consider it fair and reasonable for an insurance company to ask for details of a recent bankruptcy in order to assess the risk of insuring the person and how this would affect the premium, it is less clear why they would need to know about a declaration of bankruptcy made some time ago. This is because this data will inevitably become less relevant over time

.

After all it is the relavency that is key here

GazzaB

Thanks City Slicker I have very little debt but it must be horrendous having to deal with the situations I read on here. I think that the law is unfair and does need changing why do we do so much to protect ex criminal offenders but nothing to help ex bankrupts surely there must be a human rights issue in there somewhere. I have written to my MEP and will be putting the question to our doorstep visitors when they do there customary pre election rounds. When people get together to help each other out amazing things can happen - this forum is testament to that well done everyone.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

GoCompare.com says:

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the price returned by the various insurers is the price that you pay. To be able to do that we make sure that all questions that maybe taken into consideration during underwriting are collected via our site. We will only ever ask for information required by our partners to provide an accurate quote.

A number of companies specifically require information regarding bankruptcy, others will base their price on an assumption that…“No resident has been declared bankrupt or had any criminal convictions or official caution and does not have any pending prosecutions”.

In response to the Information Commissioner Offices’ comments, we consider that collecting information to ensure that this question or assumption is answered truthfully is “adequate, relevant and not excessive”.

I can not comment on individual insurance company’s underwriting criteria as they can be complex but, depending on circumstances, they may consider bankruptcy to increase the risk. You will have noticed that some companies do not consider bankruptcy as a risk, and would have returned a quote without requiring further information.

I hope that this helps clarify the matter, and that you found suitable insurance.


---

That has been referred straight to the ICO as GoCompare.com's response does not justify why their questioning is appropriate to the DPA third principle (in other words to me saying 'just because we're told to' - in essence what GoCompare.com are saying - is not good enough).

Has anyone else emailed their individual insurers yet? I am in the process of doing this and awaiting a final response. The more insurance companies that are challenged, the greater our win.

ian_h

Prior to Bankruptcy I had an Insurance Broking business and it is true that most Insurers will not return a quote if the question relating Bankruptcy is answered positively.

Unlike criminal convictions that are covered by the Rehabilitation of offenders act, the Bankruptcy question is not time bound, and just asks "you or anyone at your address EVER been declared...."

This needs to be challenged on two fronts:

1. Change the law (either at UK or EU level) so that there is a defined period during which a bankruptcy must be disclosed (maybe discharge + 6 yrs?)

2. The Association of British Insurers should be challenged to change this practice and set a defined rule or abolish this line of underwriting where it cant be proved it alters the risk.

There is also the legal issue of whether the ban of certain occupations after bankruptcy is still relevant in this day and age; I wonder what the result of a challenge under infringement of human rights would be?

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Good success story here which may be the start of the end for insurers considering if anyone has ever been bankrupt. The AA has amended their website which, in the assumption statement, now reads:

"You and your household... have never been or are not about to be declared bankrupt, or are now discharged from bankruptcy".

In other words, if you are discharged from bankruptcy you do not need to declare it with The AA.

Spurred on, the next company I have been a customer of and am targeting is the Budget Group which includes Budget Insurance and CompareTheMarket.com. I have written the following letter -

---
I note when obtaining a quote via your website BudgetInsurance.com you ask a mandatory question “Has anyone ever been declared bankrupt?”, and CompareTheMarket.com you ask “Anyone at the property ever been declared bankrupt?” which I believe are inappropriate and excessive questions in relation to the Data Protection Act. I seek for you to amend these statements so they reflect only those about to declare themselves bankrupt or currently bankrupt, and to cease collecting data of discharged bankruptcies.

My partner was declared bankrupt several years ago and subsequently discharged. The relevance of the information may have been more appropriate at the time as my partner was an undischarged bankrupt, however according to your site terms and conditions it is clear you still collect this data regardless of how long ago a bankruptcy was.

The Information Commissioner has advised over a period of time such information becomes less relevant and you may be obtaining excessive information to provide insurance cover in asking a question that is not time-bound. In supporting such a statement, it is worthy to note organisations such as Credit Reference Agencies disregard bankruptcy after a period of six years. Additionally another insurer I have challenged over this matter, The AA, has now revised their website statement to discount discharged bankrupts which reads “You and your household... have never been or are not about to be declared bankrupt, or are now discharged from bankruptcy”.

Their legal department further advises:

“Insurers may take into account an individual's bankruptcy status when assessing risk and deciding upon whether, and on what terms to offer home insurance. The only relevant information that they use in this regard is whether an individual living at the home is currently in the process of being declared bankrupt or is currently a declared bankrupt. If the individual has a discharged bankruptcy, this information will not be recorded and will not form part of the risk assessment carried out by our panel of insurers.”

Following discussions with Andrew Laing, Assistant Commissioner (Head of Casework) at the Information Commissioner's Office, he advises I obtain a response why information relating to an old bankruptcy is 'relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose of assessing insurance risk' to use their terminology. Specifically Andrew has directed me to the third data principle of the Data Protection Act 1998, which says that personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

The ICO has requested a reply to be provided so they can decide if your collection of such data is excessive or not. If you are unwilling or unable to provide such a response please advise me, otherwise please provide a full response within 14 days. If I do not receive a response within this time I will interpret this as being unwilling to provide a response and advise the Commissioner accordingly so they can process the matter directly with you.
---

I realise to many this may seem like a small issue however it is something that affects most bankrupts when it comes to insurance. This one small step with one company hopefully will result in a large issue coming crumbling down, so for instance now discharged bankrupts can go to The AA knowing they will receive the same treatment as everyone else in the future as a result of this campaigning.

Your support and help really does spur me on, so if you have taken time to look at this thread please at least leave a comment and if you too want to find an insurer who still considers discharged bankruptcy to be relevant please feel free to use the letter amended for your situation to challenge them and post your story.

blind-as-a-bat_2

Well done CS, thats a great result, and its by no means a small issue, if this works it could be applied to many other things;)

I have not been able to contribute much as I don’t have an insurer to badger.

That may change in four to six weeks;)

So am following with intrest:)

MistaSooperAngry

These corporate bullies are at last being brought to task! Excellent CS, particularly staying the course.

As I had left renewing my car insurance late, I merely looked for a company that had no BR questions, and thoroughly checked the policy on receipt.

What I am finding is grief in the employment market. I am allegedly amongst the top 10% of engineers in the UK, 166 applications in 29 weeks . . . 2 interviews. All my colleagues cannot believe that I have been out of work for so long. If there were any self-employed positions, I'd go that way, but along with the billions of taxpayers pounds, all gone!

I may well ask the major agencies if they refer to the London Gazette as part of the employee profiling, and adapt your letter accordingly.

Thanks!

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I am sorry to hear you have been out of work so long. My gut instinct says I doubt all those rejections are from checking the London Gazette, perhaps if you got so far as the selection stage it is possible an employer would check this but it seems unlikely and unnecessary for an engineering position.

If I was in your situation I would not be tempted to mention it to employers. Reason behind this is twofold. Firstly what I am doing is arguing the major insurers for something I believe I have the law on my side. The insurers know there is the risk of hefty financial penalties for them if they are found to be non-compliant, and because I have been able to get the issue raised with someone reasonably senior at the ICO the insurers know I mean business and I do intend to follow this all through. An employer can refuse to employ you without needing to give any reason at all. Some reasons are of course illegal - such as sex discrimination or race discrimination, but proving it (unless the employer is blatant about it) is something else.

Secondly when business picks up and engineering companies do try to recruit, you could talk yourself out of a job. An employer who is genuinely not needing someone right now may consider you in the future unless they think you might be trouble. It could be they want someone who is in a job right now so they have current experience (a friend tells me locally it is near impossible to get in skilled catering if you have not worked in this skill for more than six months because you are considered too rusty). It could be any number of reasons. I would write and ask them if they have any feedback on your application instead and stay positive about it.

Good luck with the job search.

MistaSooperAngry

I never mention it to anyone! After seeing the prejudice that's out there already, Mum's the word!

I have thought about going on the offensive, and making allegations against agents, as they account for 98% of vacancies. In 2008, the 6 main ones were busted for collusion, last year a Construction Blacklist Database was exposed, but with the pathetic fines given out, is likely to be in existence in some other form. The top 40 employers used it, one of whom I left in 2007. Another, I was recommended for a post by several of their own employees, no reason given for their declining me, despite a request through front and back doors.

I think the key may have something to do with why I lost my job in the first place.

Having been promised at least one year's work at the end of November 2008, by the MD no less, within a week I was told to stay home and then had reduced hours in the new year until I left.

The cause - a very bitter psychopathic ex, who's nasty lies to the MD persuaded him that I was a hard drug addict! I have only just discovered this a few days ago. They are advertising for posts I could fill, and I have considered offering them to do an instant drugs test on me at any time, to disprove those lies, but the cost is prohibitive.

Ageism also plays a part in other applications, but my instincts also tell me something is not right. A colleague suggested I do some investigative journalism on agents, as was the case with the AA holding company, and also the newest scam, lawyers scamming users for illegal file downloads. Having been an IT programmer on and off for almost 30 years, it is very tempting!!

I have just passed an industry benchmark exam at 90%, in ¾ of the allocated time when all other engineers that are in work took the whole time, scored much less, so although rusty in the work habit, still at the top intellectually.

I asked for feedback and was told I was just pipped at the post on one interview - I think it more likely due to my having to relocate as I really performed well at both interviews.

Ironically, I have 2 inventions, both mass market, one from 1987 and another from 2000 that aren't patented but recent attempts to attract an investor failed due to my dire finances.

Despite all that, I am not despondent, especially reading the results people have had on this board.

At the end of the last recession, I earned very well, trouble-shooting projects that had been bought at under cost and thus ran late (very), so will look for any that are running awry.

Having fallen from as high as I was to abject poverty, I am surprised at just how resilient I have become!

Many thanks for your time, advice and kind sentiments, CS.