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

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Here is something that goes from the sublime to the ridiculous from More Th>n.

They say they have no bankrupt questions, super. Now try to understand this.

They say if they are one of the few out of, say 50 companies on a price comparison site, who accepted bankrupts they may be left open to possible fraud or mis-use! They also acknowledge they do not say anyone who is declared bankrupt would automatically go out of their way for financial gain but they need to protect themselves.

That is just odd in my opinion. They are willing to accept bankrupts but not via price comparison sites as if they did and they were in a minority returning quotes they may be subject to fraud. I suppose I could turn this around with the ABI to say their role in standardising bankruptcy data is borne out in this way so there is a real need for data standardisation, but what a bizarre response from More Th>n.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

GoCompare.com don't want to know:

We work very closely with our insurance partners to ensure our website asks all the questions they require answers for to be able to return a quote. It is a requirement of our insurance partners that the question regarding bankruptcy is asked.

Whilst I appreciate your comments regarding expanding the question to obtain more details, we honestly feel that our current question is adequate at present. I visited the Confused.com website and entered details declaring bankruptcy on the site and received no online quotes at all. Using the same details and answering ‘yes’ to bankruptcy on the Gocompare.com site, returned 15 prices.

There are some insurers who do not consider bankruptcy at all in their rating factors and those are the insurers who return prices online and which are available through Gocompare.com. However, the majority of insurers do insist on speaking to customers before the offer a quote so they can obtain further details. This applies not only to bankruptcy but other non-standard risks such as subsidence, flooding and non-standard construction.

I have looked into some of the companies you refer to and can see that whilst they may be happy to provide a quote over the phone, their own direct websites will not. For example, Sureterm insurance asks customers to declare they have not been made bankrupt and if they cannot, they have to telephone for a quote. Hastings Direct explain that if the customer or anyone living in the property has ever been made bankrupt, they cannot offer cover online and customers need to telephone. The six year rule only applies to CCJs.

We definitely take your comments on board and will continue to work closely with our insurance partners to ensure that our question set is up to date.


My response:

I will admit to being disappointed with GoCompare's position; particularly as since I have been discussing these points with other comparison sites and insurers there appears to be a great willingness to come to a standardised position. Other sites, including Confused.com, have advised they will be amending their website and their position dealing with bankruptcy rather than attaining to the status quo.

With this in mind, your response is useful as I am drawing up evidence of key industry players to feed into the ABI's investigations on this matter. Your position appears to reflect an urgent need to come to a sensible conclusion across the industry; as opposed to refusing business on the basis of assumptions or effort required.

My understanding from discussions taking place across bankruptcy forums is new customers still use your website to make comparisons, they then answer negatively to your generic bankruptcy question in order to obtain quotes and approach the company directly. Your maintaining the status quo does appear to be losing business. Additionally as I pointed out in my previous email the companies I have been discussing this matter with have affirmed their position and some, such as Hastings Direct, are in the process of amending their website - this work has not yet been concluded.

Thank you for your considerations, I hope you will be able to review your website and how you approach bankruptcy in time as other groups are doing right now.

dojoman

Thanks for persisting with this CS:)

NewStart09

I have followed your thread from the beginning, and to be honest I find it fascinating that other individuals are penalised for living with someone who has been bankrupt.

What other offence affects the family and partners as bankruptcy? They are guilty by mere association?

Bankruptcy is not a criminal act, yet it has an endless punishment period. For the individual and their familys

No other criminal or personal act affects the family members the way bankruptcy does, surely this must be a human rights issue?

In this economic climate, the laws need to be amended, they never seem to delay in putting up the fees to file or changing the rules that apply, yet the law regarding limitation is ignored.

I admire your tenacity in this matter, it would put some people off staying in the relationship, as if you simply split up, you could have exactly what you are entitled too.

I dont see how any organisation can penalise anyone past a 6 year period irregardless of their previous credit file, everyone makes mistakes, and if someone has shown through their credit rating that they are responsible with their money after such an instance of bankrupty, than they should be entitled to close the door behind them and have a new start.

NewStart09

Ineedaname

This has been a big part of it for me since CS started this thread, unbelievable that he is penalised for living with someone who was once BR. If the insurance companies are to be believed, then the only issue their underwriters have relating to BR is the reliability of the policy holder to make regular payments by DD. As CS is the policyholder and not BR, surely that risk is negated?

It's not as if a BR is any more likely to make a claim after all, or do they think that's likely in the belief that BRs are fraudsters?

I would love to know why underwriters perceive this situation to be a risk and I really do think this aspect should be part of any amended regulations/guidelines. Perhaps time to get my writing head on in a few weeks (bit backed up until mid September) and ask the question to help CS out.

jules888

Some people never learn though.My husbands parents have been repossed twice,losing 2 houses.Have borrowed money off us many times and cannot live within their means.My husband was affected by this from being a child.I dont think they realise how much it has affected him.They are in their late 60s and 70s now so we know they wont change now!

NewStart09

Some people never learn though.My husbands parents have been repossed twice,losing 2 houses.Have borrowed money off us many times and cannot live within their means.My husband was affected by this from being a child.I dont think they realise how much it has affected him.They are in their late 60s and 70s now so we know they wont change now!

Yes, well not everyone has to be tarred by the same brush, hence my earlier comment:

If the person has shown that they can manage their money after bankruptcy are they not entitled to leave the sordid business of bankruptcy behind them? Each individuals case is different.

NewStart09

4$£&*(£$&*(!

jules888 wrote: »

Some people never learn though.My husbands parents have been repossed twice,losing 2 houses.Have borrowed money off us many times and cannot live within their means.My husband was affected by this from being a child.I dont think they realise how much it has affected him.They are in their late 60s and 70s now so we know they wont change now!

I'm unsure how this relates to the issue of house insurance for bankrupts though?

alastairq

jules888 wrote: »

Some people never learn though.My husbands parents have been repossed twice,losing 2 houses.Have borrowed money off us many times and cannot live within their means.My husband was affected by this from being a child.I dont think they realise how much it has affected him.They are in their late 60s and 70s now so we know they wont change now!

As Cityslicker says...how is this experience related to house insurance...or even, bankruptcy?


What I cannot understand about direct debit payment and insurance premiums is....if the DD fails, then the cover ceases.

Failure of DDs has absolutely nothing to do with bankruptcy...it is a common enough occurrence amongst the population at large.

Insurers rely on DD as a payment system simply because, without it their business would shrink beyond recognition, such are the levels of their premiums.

Therefore, DD failure must be built into their business model?

Ineedaname

That's why insurers (or their underwriters at least) need educating that:

1. It is irrelevant if a BR or ex BR lives in the property when the policy holder is not BR and is paying the DD.

and

2. Regardless of the above, a BR/ex BR is MORE likely to ensure the DD is paid as the majority of ex BRs do not wish to get into debt again. To an ex BR, to fail a DD is part of that slippery slope towards debt.

So there is NO higher risk either during or immediately post BR.

Wouldn't it be lovely if there were some underwriters on the board who could explain the risk?