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

dojoman

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!

Your point being?

iquit

Ineedaname wrote: »

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. "Also many of us have basic bank accounts, which means too many failed DD and the bank will ask them to take their business elsewhere (not many options out there for us as it stands)"

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?

Good points.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have compiled a draft report and uploaded it here:

http://wikisend.com/download/320844/Insurance_ABI_report_draft.pdf

This is still a work in progress so I have put a password on the file. If you want the password to view the file please post and I will send you this by PM.

I would love your feedback (in public on this forum), positive and negative as I have to be on the ball with this - I only get one shot at this so if you spot something wrong I've missed I need to know.

Also because it is a draft anyone who downloads it I would ask you don't publicly share it as I don't want this going in the open until it's fully ready for the ABI. Once I've ironed it all out of course I will post the full and final copy as soon as it goes to the ABI as well.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Anyone who sent me a PM asking for the password I have sent you it, please check your messages.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have ironed out some bits, in for a penny in for a pound, here is the file for you all to see:

http://www.mediafire.com/?90790obl9a67cf7

(MSE appears only on this copy, on the submitted copy it includes my contact details).

(PS - Now everyone please keep your fingers, toes and any other possible part of your anatomy crossed).

iquit

Inspired by CS I wrote to my MP, this is the response I got:-

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your recent email regarding discharged bankrupts. Grant has asked me to reply on his behalf.

Grant understands that financial rehabilitation following bankruptcy can be an unduly lengthy process, and that bankrupts often face difficulties in operating even a basic bank account facility. He understands that bankrupts are often more vulnerable to loss or theft and are far more likely to use the sub-prime credit market.

Following a recent review on consumer credit and insolvency, the Government will be issuing, in due course, a consultation to seek views on amendments to insolvency legislation to address the perceived risk by banks that a trustee in bankruptcy may pursue the bank for property acquired by a debtor during the course of the bankruptcy . It is hoped that these proposals will offer the prospect of greater financial inclusion for potentially thousands of people.

The Government also recognises the concerns expressed about a negative impact on a debtor's credit rating and will continue to work with credit reference agencies and the lending community to ensure that they are aware of the full implications of each insolvency procedure and the differences between them.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact Grant, and I hope this helps address your concerns. If however Grant can be of further assistance with this or any other matter please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Kind Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxxx

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Good job getting your MP to listen, mine didn't even have the courtesy to respond. It sounds your MP is genuinely concerned about financial inclusion and that's an excellent position. Perhaps give it three months or so then send a follow-up letter asking how he's got on?

alastairq

Grant understands that financial rehabilitation following bankruptcy can be an unduly lengthy process, and that bankrupts often face difficulties in operating even a basic bank account facility. He understands that bankrupts are often more vulnerable to loss or theft and are far more likely to use the sub-prime credit market.

all of which sounds to me as if your MP is actually basing his reply on hearsay and gossip, rather than any factual evidence.....but is presenting that hearsay as fact.

Simply because, there is a general perception that anyone who is bankrupt, must have difficulties regarding management of finances....and is in effect bumping along the bottom of the financial ocean.....

We see that perception all the time on this forum, especially from those who are new to bankruptcy, and all that goes with it.

This is not meant to be derogatory with regards to new posters on here....far from it, I merely wish to hilite the point that misconception clearly clouds ordinary folks' concepts of bankruptcy, and bankrupts in general.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I understand where you're coming from, and you're quite right - too many people base hearsay on fact.

I've decided to have a second shot at my MP following iquit being able to at least get a response. Having ignored me early on, I've sent them the full copy of my report which went to the ABI. I don't know it will do much good to have the MP involved at this stage in the game but we'll see.

I am still resting a lot of hope the ABI will do something if they can tell by looking at my report that I do mean business. It's all a waiting game for me now. (The link if people still haven't seen the report yet is http://www.mediafire.com/?90790obl9a67cf7)

Ineedaname

iquit wrote: »

He understands that bankrupts are often more vulnerable to loss or theft and are far more likely to use the sub-prime credit market.

I think a response challenging him to explain why he believes all of this to be true might be worthwhile, especially if you can put him right afterwards. I'd be really interested to hear his response anyway.

"more vulnerable to loss or theft" - so we're less likely to take care of our property and are a bigger target for thieves? If that's why insurance underwriters think we're a bigger risk then we are in trouble.