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

dojoman

iquit wrote: »

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

Wow, how condescending and ignorant is that answer. Just like the BBC slot on BR with that idiot Dom (whatever his name is) total misinformation, just unbelievable.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have had an email from ABI to say my paper has been passed to the Director for Insurance and Health and their assistant Director (as the Director is on leave), the assistant Director also holds responsibility for property, liability and motor.

So it's in the right hands, if people have had chance to read it (link is just a few posts behind) I would really appreciate feedback.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have received a belated update from AA Insurance:

...To look into the situation further I completed a quotation using Confused.com, with, and then without bankruptcy. I've also asked what the processes are when a call is then made to us regarding this matter should a quotation be completed using the AA internet site directly.

As an intermediary our approach does have to bear in mind that the insurers on our panel may have varying criteria. Nevertheless, I re-traced the journey that potential customers would take so that I could raise this matter using an internal facility we have. I've also mentioned that you have been in contact with the ICO and also the ABI.

You are of course quite correct in that by answering yes to the question, our system clearly averts any of the insurers we represent from providing a quotation directly, and if this is being done using a comparison site then the AA is not going to be one of the insurance providers that gives a price.

From my internal enquiries it would seem that we would quote under normal terms if the bankruptcy has been discharged. I acknowledge your comments regarding the labour intensive method of using the telephone, but as present (as you are already aware) this will be the only method of obtaining the quotation with ourselves to include your partner on the insurance policy.

Other than raising the issue via our internal processes I'm sorry that I'm presently unable to do any more regarding the issues you have raised.

(Ombudsman amble paragraph).


I appreciate this person's honesty, however it's pretty clear to me this has all come from someone very low level in the organisation given they had to raise this through what I interpret as an internal suggestion box. Bit disappointing overall.

I still haven't heard anything from the ABI since I last posted, it is very early doors though and I'll give it about two more months then chase them but they did say their report would complete in the autumn which we have not quite yet reached yet.

IF

Well done persevering CitySlicker, small steps eh!! Thank you :beer:

IF

Bump.........x

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Thanks for your support as ever, it is all appreciated.

dojoman

Bump............

dojoman

Bump..............

alastairq

dojoman wrote: »

Bump..............

it's like driving through Sheffield?

Izzy123456

CitySlicker, thank you for bringing this to our attention - please read to the end of this comment as I have a suggestion.

The current situation with home insurance and bankrupts is completely unreasonable and unfair.

It is wrong that someone should be affected by home insurance, just because they *live* with someone else who was made bankrupt years ago.

And it is totally unfair for the bankrupt themselves to have this follow them around for life, as if they are branded. It would mean every time they move in with new people, they have to disclose their private financial past, even if it was 40 years ago. And for ourselves, it's not right that we must tell the insurer we were bankrupt once discharged, and have to pay higher premiums. Plus if they really want an ex-BR to pay annually instead of monthly, well then a simple credit check can take care of that. They have no right to ask if we were ever BR.

I think that the insurers have made the rules up themselves with regard to bankruptcy. No-one has ever laid down the law with them about what is fair and reasonable from the customer's point of view. They have not been regulated properly with respect to how they treat bankrupts.

It seems to me that their BR rules are a weasel way to get of of paying a claim, especially as they *don't* always ask about BR (especially if the person's circumstances change while being on the same policy) but *do* put it in the Terms and Conditions. They simply put in the small print about BR, and then unearth it later when someone makes a claim. Imagine Peter Jones making a claim on his house insurance, only to find they refuse to pay it at all because he was once bankrupt a long time ago - great way for them to get out of paying a claim, and totally unfair on us.

It is making it necessary for normal people to ask others if they have ever been BR before living in the same house. There are so many young people, students, and others of all kinds of age and situation living in shared households out there.

Imagine if someone has an ex-BR au pair living with them, and then gets their home insurance claim invalidated. It's encouraging an environment where never-BR people are reluctant to be connected with ever-BR people. It could potentially impinge on the opportunities for ex-BRs to get housing and/or even work if connected to the housing situation.

CitySlicker, for car insurance as I'm sure you know, it's now illegal for insurers to discriminate on the basis of gender. Surely there are parallels here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cheaper-insurance-for-women-ruled-unfair-2228788.html

The last most important thing I wanted to say is - the Office of Fair Trading looks into these kinds of issues for the consumer, and then gets the rules changed as they are a government department - what do you think about contacting them?

Izzy