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

Ineedaname

It's the insurers who are saying there's a payments risk relating to BRs/ex BRs, not me. I agree with you, it's no higher a risk than anyone else who hasn't been BR. In fact, as with all financial stuff, we're more likely to be able to keep up with payments because we have no debts...

Regardless, the payments risk of a non BR proposer with a BR/ex BR in the household isn't any higher than that of anyone else who is non BR and has no BR/ex BR in the houshold.

The contents of a BR/ex BR are no more or less likely to warrant a claim than a non BR's contents. So the fact the propose is insuring a BR/ex BR's contents is neither here nor there.

I'd like to hear CitySlicker's thoughts on this.

now

I think that six years is long enough for BR to be recorded and if you have never claimed against a policy that should stand more then what you might do in the future. EU court of human rights springs to mind

dojoman

Ineedaname wrote: »

It's the insurers who are saying there's a payments risk relating to BRs/ex BRs, not me. I agree with you, it's no higher a risk than anyone else who hasn't been BR. In fact, as with all financial stuff, we're more likely to be able to keep up with payments because we have no debts... Totally agree.

Regardless, the payments risk of a non BR proposer with a BR/ex BR in the household isn't any higher than that of anyone else who is non BR and has no BR/ex BR in the houshold. Totally agree.

The contents of a BR/ex BR are no more or less likely to warrant a claim than a non BR's contents. So the fact the propose is insuring a BR/ex BR's contents is neither here nor there.Never said anything different.

I'd like to hear CitySlicker's thoughts on this.

Sorry CS for hijacking your thread.

Ineedaname

As is common Dojo, we agree, just say it different ways and confuse each other in the process.:D

ani_26

now wrote: »

I think that six years is long enough for BR to be recorded and if you have never claimed against a policy that should stand more then what you might do in the future. EU court of human rights springs to mind

Hey now, how are you doing? Long time, no see, mwah xxxxxxxxxxxx


( Sorry for hijacking the thread )

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Ineedaname wrote: »

It's the insurers who are saying there's a payments risk relating to BRs/ex BRs, not me. I agree with you, it's no higher a risk than anyone else who hasn't been BR. In fact, as with all financial stuff, we're more likely to be able to keep up with payments because we have no debts...

Regardless, the payments risk of a non BR proposer with a BR/ex BR in the household isn't any higher than that of anyone else who is non BR and has no BR/ex BR in the houshold.

The contents of a BR/ex BR are no more or less likely to warrant a claim than a non BR's contents. So the fact the propose is insuring a BR/ex BR's contents is neither here nor there.

I'd like to hear CitySlicker's thoughts on this.

You have indeed asked, here's my thoughts.

I think payment risk is a bit of a misnomer. If you pay all at once, what's the risk? There isn't one. If you miss a payment, they have the right to cancel your policy so you won't be benefiting from receiving a service you are not paying for. Plus insurers ask if the proposer has ever had insurance cancelled so missing a payment causing it to be cancelled would have to be declared in that section instead.

In other words I don't think there is a payment risk

On the moral risk, this is where things get unstuck. We all know on this forum how we view bankruptcy morally, but equally as we all know there are occasionally people who are not quite so honest which is the reason things like BRU's come up. I would love to see the insurers risk data on this to either prove or disprove moral risks surrounding bankruptcy.

Saying that, I am finding a common issue that many insurers don't care about bankruptcy beyond two years anyway. The sticking point in all of this is a perpetual position that insurers ask you to declare bankruptcy for life. Yet if they don't care about bankruptcy beyond two years, and they amend the question to ask if the person is subject to ongoing BRU's or other restrictions, then they can filter out this risk. (Does that make sense? I have tried wording that as best as I can).

What I am getting at is I think there is a potential increased risk at least during that first year of bankruptcy as this could be the time when a person loses their home and most of their possessions, but I would argue the insurers who use the two year timeframe will have allowed that initial period of loss to pass and the temptation is likely to be far less to make a claim say two years down the road from losing everything they may have had.

(I should add a note to that paragraph, I recognise many, many bankrupts have absolutely nothing at the point of bankruptcy which was the case with my partner also).

In my situation for example I am the policyholder, and yes others in the household do benefit from being covered but they have to get through me to make a claim first. Unless it is a claim I agree with, I am not going to allow it to go through my policy as I will have to pay the increased premiums the next year.

Coming round full circle, I think both you and Dojoman agree in a roundabout sort of way

4$£&*(£$&*(!

now wrote: »

I think that six years is long enough for BR to be recorded and if you have never claimed against a policy that should stand more then what you might do in the future. EU court of human rights springs to mind

I have been contemplating ECHR if I received no movement, but gradually it appears the mountain is starting to crumble.

Here's Swiftcover's response (part of AXA):

We have received a response from our Underwriting Team and they have advised that if the policyholder or their family living at the property have not been made bankrupt within the last 2 years we are happy to offer cover with ourselves.

Our Business Improvement Team will liaise with the comparison sites to advise to request a time period of when bankruptcy was declared, however, we cannot insist that they amend their websites. (my highlight)

We hope this answers your query and we thank you for taking the time to give us your feedback.


Hastings Direct have written a letter to me also to say their quotations are driven by the insurers they work with and they will be discussing this issue with each of them to understand their requirements in full, then in turn to check how this affects the price comparison websites.


In relation to both of these comments from Swiftcover and Hastings, they both seem to be keen to sort something out. Swiftcover's highlighted paragraph, the price comparison websites cannot be forced to alter their questions, no. But now I am building up quite a lovely portfolio of evidence this can all go to the comparison sites and suggested they alter wording so bankruptcy is given a time limit. If not it's dead easy to bring this matter to the world's attention. A few posts on consumer action forums, a few tweets and perhaps a retweet by influential industry people (Martin?) would pile loads of pressure on. Then it would only take one comparison website to make such a change and we'd all flock to them, the others would be silly not to also change in that case as they'd lose all their business to the site that does return quotes.

I am trying not to get too excited about this, but the consistent replies now coming in looks like we are potentially on the verge of forcing some people's hands on this.

Ineedaname

Fantastic to hear your detailed thoughts on the payment risk and moral issues.

CitySlicker wrote: »

Coming round full circle, I think both you and Dojoman agree in a roundabout sort of way

We do seem to agree most of the time, but often have a good discussion to get there.

dojoman

Ineedaname wrote: »

Fantastic to hear your detailed thoughts on the payment risk and moral issues.



We do seem to agree most of the time, but often have a good discussion to get there.

I don`t agree with that INAN :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Only joking;) and yes, thanks CS for your take on things:)

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Groupama is a large conglomerate covering several intermediaries. They say:

It may beneficial if I first explain how Groupama transact business and the role of the comparison websites.

Groupama do not deal direct with the public, we are a broker based company and only transact business through insurance brokers and intermediaries. Any quotation you will have received with Groupama will have been via one of these types of agent. You do not say which agent in particular this was.

Groupama provides acceptance criteria and premium rates to the broker or intermediary, which they load on to their own computer system(s) in order to provide quotations. The broker or intermediary would usually approach the price comparison sites (or vice versa) to be included on that particular website. You refer to GoCompare.com and I must inform you that GoCompare.com actually provide the question set to which Groupama and numerous other insurers don't have much, if any, involvement in.

If you haven't done so already it may be worth taking your questions to GoCompare.com. As Groupama play no part in how the questions appear on GoCompare and other price comparison websites I regret that I am not able to answer on their behalf. However, price comparison sites do tend to ask increasingly fewer questions, it would appear that this is done in order to speed the process up and usually targets the majority of risks as opposed to the minority or what could be considered non-standard risks.

I can confirm that Groupama would normally accept business from a customer where there is a history of declared bankruptcy, providing that bankruptcy has been discharged. However, as nearly all business is being transacted by computers now, in one form or another, insurers often have to rely on what the various quotation systems and software packages ,being used, produce. If there is no capacity to ask further questions on a particular subject, then an insurer may decline on the basis that the extra questions cannot be asked to verify or indeed agree acceptance of the risk, and this appears to be what has happened in this instance. (My highlight)

Most Brokers or Agents either outsource the payments / credit to an external provider, and I cannot answer the question as to whether bankruptcy is a risk factor on payments. As outlined above we accept discharged bankruptcy so the risk pertaining to risk factor, I assume is minimal.

I trust this answers your questions, however if you need anything further please contact me.