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

4$£&*(£$&*(!

It has been several months since I posted in this thread, so I wanted to update people with the current state of play and ask people as a reminder to consider campaigning by challenging any insurer who asks the question if you, or anyone else in your house, has ever been bankrupt and referring them to the Information Commissioner if you do not get a satisfactory outcome.

The Information Commissioner has collated my complaints and are taking this issue forward under the third principle of the Data Protection Act (the principle that states information should be relevant, current etc). They have asked several organisations I am making representations against for their response why these organisations combine both discharged and non-discharged bankrupts together, and are asking the organisations why they feel this is appropriate. They are additionally asking in the cases I have made representations against what they intend to do to put matters right, and what safeguards are in place to ensure personal data is handled properly. They have given a 28 day response request to these companies.

I can only make representations with the ICO against companies I have had dealings with, so your involvement is vital also. So far, the companies I have raised a complaint with are:

Grove and Dean Ltd (Trading as 'Performance Direct' - this company came up the cheapest on a price comparison site for me and they refused to insure me as my partner is a discharged bankrupt; they state they do not take the length of discharge into consideration and decline everyone regardless).

uSwitch, the comparison website I obtained a quote for Performance Direct.

Lastly, and this is the big one, BISL. BISL provide the service for Budget Insurance and also CompareTheMarket.com. They returned silly quotes once I confirmed someone in the house is a discharged bankrupt. I called them and they were not sympathetic to my arguments.

Ironically I eventually found insurance with another group who was far cheaper than Budget quoted me and almost as cheaply as I found in the first place with Performance Direct who did not require any information about bankruptcy (they cost me about £12 more for the year); I have it in writing they do not need to know this, they used the same underwriters and BISL to administer the policy.

This may sound like small potatoes, but using Martin's insurance guide to obtain the cheapest household insurance gave me quotes averaging £400+ when bankruptcy was declared, compared to half that when bankruptcy was not declared. The problem we will always have is the argument bankrupts are more of a risk; we can never prove or disprove this without insurers' data. What we can say however is over time, information about a bankrupt becomes less relevant and to put a person in the same category of risk if they have just declared bankruptcy against a person who may have been discharged 10, 20, 30 or more years is unfair and inappropriate.

I really hope others continue to support this campaign, it is in the long term interests of anyone who has ever been bankrupt and also the families of those people who perhaps had no involvement with the bankrupt person until years later but then become affected as soon as the discharged bankrupt moves in.

mjm3346

CitySlicker wrote: »

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.

.

You should inform the AA if the assumptions are incorrect, so if you are/have been BR and do not declare it the quote/insurance would not be valid.


Assumptions about this cover

have never been or are not about to be declared bankrupt, or are now discharged from bankruptcy


Can't confirm all of the assumptions?
Call 0800 316 1567, we should be able to find the right policy for you. We just need to ask a few more questions.



Presumably they had a yes/no question on this before, now non-bankrupts don't need to do anything but BRs still have to tell them.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

That's correct, if you are currently bankrupt or about to become bankrupt you still need to declare this to the AA. My argument is not with this and never has been, I do not disagree in principle with insurers asking a question about current bankrupts if they have the risk data to back up their position.

My argument has always been it is unfair to continue penalising a discharged bankrupt, or (as in my case) the family of the discharged bankrupt for the rest of their lives. I disagree with a non-timebound question being asked, and the ICO seems to agree that over time, certain information becomes less relevant. So my dispute with insurance companies is all about them stopping asking any questions about discharged bankrupts (or at least stopping asking after the person has been discharged for x many years, akin to the credit reference agencies dropping off bankruptcy from their files after six years).

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Over the weekend I received a credit amount on my credit card so I queried what it was. The credit card company said it was for a refund of some sort as far as they understand, so I called the insurers who gave the refund. They said because I was unable to switch to the new insurers online with uSwitch (qualifying for a 10% discount in the process) with the company that came up the cheapest, even though I ended up getting the same cover with another company but using the same underwriter, uSwitch who gave the initial comparison have agreed after me referring them to the ICO they will apply the 10% discount hence the credit.

I thought that was very fair of them, although I am still pursuing the ICO on an ongoing basis right now as the question of bankruptcy appears fundamentally unfair whilst it is a non-timebound question. Incidentally I have noticed uSwitch has changed their website on the bankrupcy question, now asking who it was and when they became bankrupt. This was never in place before, maybe they are getting the message? I haven't gone so far as obtaining quotes yet, if someone else tries it maybe you can post the results on here how the quotes come up depending on what info you enter there?

Doucam

Thanks for the update City Slicker.

I missed the bit about the AA insurance earlier in the year, we are with them for our home ins and it doubled when we declared BR, but now we are discharged it shouldn't count but as it is on our file with them they will know.

It will be interesting to see what quote we get when it comes up for renewal.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I had a load of backlogged post arrive this week delayed due to the snow. There was a letter from the uSwitch director via Ageas Insurance. He said Ageas Insurance owned the uSwitch brand and also Cover Direct, the company I took the cover out with. The story went a cheap quote came up on uSwitch, they offered 10% discount for using the online service, I was turned down with the cheapest broker on Cover Direct for my partner's bankruptcy, so I went to another price comparison website and Cover Direct came up, they didn't ask about bankruptcy so I phoned them. They confirmed it wasn't a problem and they put this in writing. With both companies it was Brit who underwrote the insurance, Brit was responsible for my initial refusal.

So the director essentially said there was a problem on Cover Direct, they SHOULD have asked me but didn't, and when they put the confirmation in writing for me it wasn't a problem that was a mistake, they should have called Brit who would have given the same declination. So this isn't quite as straightforward as them being nice and giving me a £23 credit as I thought earlier.

The director then went onto say he never had any previous correspondence from me and was disappointed the first complaint came via the ICO. I have sent him a copy of the unanswered letter that was emailed to them and the evidence I sent it. I also said I was concerned that a company regulated by the FSA cannot track correspondence. Instead of saying the whole question of asking if anyone has ever been bankrupt is a concern for him; he rather said the sites ask for bankruptcy info then are directed for a phone quotation! I have put a reply to him this still contravenes the third principle of the DPA - just because his website refers people to an operator doesn't mean he is not collecting this data in the first place and that is my argument all along.

Sadly his letter stated, even though it was his first reply to me, this was his final response and I was welcome to refer the case within six months to the FSA so I have done. I have also copied all this to the ICO as I think the response uSwitch has given is poor at best and shoddily dismissive at worst.

One to bear in mind when these small companies like Cover Direct come up as a good quote to find out who owns them and what the parent company own, I know some people like BGL group own a multitude and they also do price comparison but this is a prime example of a company showing its own products as cheapest even when they do the comparison for you.

Summing up, uSwitch is now back with the ICO and now the FSA because they do not want to listen to my arguments. I still haven't tried their new comparison site which asks more questions about bankruptcy than a straight yes/no, would someone like to play around with this and enter different factors to see what sort of prices come up depending on what you answer then post the results here?

Thanks all for your ongoing support, we need to change this to stop bankrupts and their families being penalised for a lifetime.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Very brief update, the FSA has written back to me to say this is out of their remit and their powers are limited (no prizes to anyone who sniggers at the FSA's comment they have limited powers!). This means it is all still with the ICO now.

fiveyearplan

Thanks for the update CS.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have just had a 'lightbulb' moment, why on earth have I not put in a complaint to the underwriter Brit Insurance about this?

So that is what I have done.

(Snipping personal data from this):

I understand through my broker you take bankruptcy into consideration when reviewing insurance provision. I would like to know a little more about this policy and how it works in practice.

Can you please advise me:
- How long since the original bankruptcy and subsequent discharge do you take bankruptcy into consideration as a risk factor?
- Is there a set length of time when you consider bankruptcy to no longer be relevant and then the person is treated similarly to a non-bankrupt customer; or is the bankruptcy always taken into consideration regardless of how long ago it occurred?
- How is bankruptcy of the main policy holder differentiated from the bankruptcy of anyone else living at the property?


I will post an update how we get on with Brit Insurance as they are a massive underwriter. I may end up referring them to the ICO also, let's see where we go first with this initial email. I know Brit are unfriendly with any current bankrupt and their families when providing home insurance, I have found out from conversations with the broker they definitely don't want to know anyone who has been discharged under 18 months as this is the point they declined me. I want to pin them down at what point do they become 'bankrupt-friendly', do they change their prices for life for that person from thereon (which I think could be illegal, I need to do more research), or do they just forget bankruptcy ever happened beyond x many years?

As ever I'll keep you all posted.

now

Well done, this is what is needed, if you have not claimed and not been prosecuted for fraud then you should not be held ransom by insurance companies, I alos agree that after 6 years your file should be clean and the London Gazette entry deleted unless you are BR more then once, why still hold records of people who are dead 100 of years ago? Might be worth taking it up with the European court of human rights