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

BillJones

NewStart09 wrote: »

I only wish I had the option 'right to forget' and have it erased from my history financially. Up until the day of the bankruptcy my credit rating was 967 so go figure there. I have learned a lot from this experience.

The thing is, those with whom you may wish to deal in future do not wish that it be forgotten.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Fortunately though in the real world the law protects us against unfair prejudice.

Take for example fraud. You could defraud millions of pounds, serve time in prison, actively seek to gain money illicitly with no intention of ever repaying it yet because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act you can legitimately not declare a spent conviction. This is part of the foundation of my argument - a discharged bankrupt is not necessarily a bad risk. Potentially they could be a lower financial risk as they've hit rock bottom, know what it's like and resolved to have plans in place to never allow it again. That doesn't stop them being forced to declare it in certain circumstances no matter whether it was 1, 10 or 100 years ago.

This thread is not the place to justify prejudice. I'll accept the negative critique as it lets me see a balanced perspective which is helpful, but I feel there has been a swipe at the suggestion bankruptcy should be forgotten. I am not writing this as a bankrupt myself, I have always been on top of my finances, but I have seen the pain bankruptcy put my partner through and if you read my initial story on here you will know she was forced into bankruptcy from her circumstances not material gain.

If folks want to swipe at bankrupts I'm sure there's a Daily Mail story you can comment on, otherwise let's stay on track here.

jamesd

CitySlicker wrote: »

The ruling stated data had to be removed that would appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive … in the light of the time that had elapsed. This could potentially mean the search engine on the Gazette.

It could, but if it takes the circumstances of this case - no actual bankruptcy, the debts paid and it being that long ago - it'd be quite a high hurdle for most to meet. I gave the facts because they are vital to the decision in a particular case, since they are what decide if it's now irrelevant. For actual bankruptcy it's a harder argument because part of the reason the records remain is to protect others.

What protection do you think that those who may deal with NewStart09 View Post's ex deserve? How would you try to distinguish between his case and hers, or would you want them to be treated in the same way? Perhaps worth remembering that hers is one case that I think makes one of the stronger arguments for removal to at least some degree. But her ex? Different case.

alastairq

Why do others need 'protecting' from the presence of a past bankruptcy?

No-one feels the need to protect others from the presence of a divorce, for example? Yet, divorce might have a manifestly greater impact on others, than a bankruptcy...which, for all the moralising, is a purely material position.

From my simplistic viewpoint, the antagonism toward bankruptcy from certain establishment circles stems from petulance.

Petulance at the fact that an individual has dared to use the LAw to resolve an intolerable situation..ie beat the establishment at its own game?

How dare they?

Why don't we see the same intolerance towards asset strippers, for example?

Oh yes, they don't actually break any Laws, in fact, they, too, use the Law to their own advantage.

Never mind the personal, collateral damage?

personally, I am not the slightest bit ashamed of my bankruptcy...despite it occurring some years ago now.

I am happy to throw it in the faces of those who demand to know about it....challenging them to question my moral integrity...without exposing their own lack of, in the process?

They don't like it? Their loss, not mine.

jamesd

There should not in general be any antagonism towards bankruptcy, nor any great shame to it, in spite of many people feeling that shame even when they were pretty much innocent of fault. It exists for a very worthwhile purpose.

In some ways this whole discussion saddens me: it's based on an apparent presumption that there's something shameful about bankruptcy that makes it necessary to hide the information. Often it isn't and the person going bankrupt is more of a victim than someone who should feel any shame.

It's not the past bankruptcy that people need protecting from, it's the potential of a person who may have acted badly in the past doing so again in the future. I don't think that most reasonable people could conclude that say NewStart09 acted badly and I also don't think that most people would have much objection to a pretty early removal of information in that case. The ex? A different thing.

Divorce can have major negative effects, so can the loss of financial assets in bankruptcy that can leave a person dependent on the state when they would not have been if not adversely affected by someone else they could have been warned about.

Personally I much prefer trying to de-stigmatise bankruptcy rather than hide it and think that this board is quite useful for that, letting others see that it's just normal people involved most of the time.

alastairq

I agree entirely!!

But, I use the analogy of Divorce to demonstrate how we, as a society, find one Court petition totally acceptable, [where , property aside, there can be such an adverse effect on individuals], yet when it comes to money, society appears to adopt a totally different attitude?

And, when we consider absolute criminality, society is content to adopt yet another, entirely different approach?

To quote a recent 'security' assessment, someone who has petitioned [or, been made] bankruptcy might be deemed 'unreliable'....?

Yet...such a view is not adopted, if, that someone has been divorced a few times.

One objection I do have occurs when a past bankrupt is 'required' to give reasons for the bankruptcy?

My response, would always be, the Official Receiver has that information, and has investigated, and found nothing untoward. In other words, argue that one with a Court Officer!

Me, stroppy? Does it sound like it?

BillJones

CitySlicker wrote: »

This is part of the foundation of my argument - a discharged bankrupt is not necessarily a bad risk.

This is true, but why do you not want lenders to be able to decide for themselves?

If it's not such a black mark, then why the campaign to have it hidden?

No, sorry, I'm afraiid that I don't agree with your aims, and prefer that it can be asked about indefinitely.

As to the assertion that crimes can also be forgotten, that's reallly not true, is it? There are certain crimes that put you on a register for life, and I can be pretty certain that you'd not be happy if people were able to hide them.

jamesd

A security assessment would be concerned in part with risk of blackmail. A record of infidelity or unstable relationships might leave a person susceptible to that so might well be a pretty poor finding in a security check. A BR who is open about their past would be a lower risk than one who hides [STRIKE]is up front about[/STRIKE] it. A BR who gave reasons consistent with the public record held by the court would have less to hide than one who gave a different answer since the concealment might be used in blackmail.

I recently had cause to ask an OR who had made someone else bankrupt and they told me that to save me the trouble of asking the court and told me that I could just ask the court if I wanted to know more, since it's a public record.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I do not believe bankruptcy is something to be ashamed of or to hide - it happens, it's part of life. I am sure people would rather it didn't happen to them but we're on this board talking about it and that's that.

What I am fundamentally against, and the whole virtue of my lobbying and work on this matter, is a lifelong discrimination of bankrupts. I have no issue on letting banks, insurers and whoever make their own judgement - so long as the data they are using is current and relevant.

If anything, since 2007 we know that banks can and do make money from whatever they can. I would have no problem with a bank saying higher mortgage rates or only certain bank accounts for the duration of bankruptcy. I wouldn't even have a problem if they said the same for the duration of bankruptcy showing on a credit reference file. Beyond six years though, how relevant is this data? It is certainly not current and may be a totally inaccurate financial picture of that person.

This is why we need change - if institutions use data fairly no problem. We know however they do not, so we need legislation or rules to be put in place to force them. If we did not have this we probably would still have rip-off PPI for instance to this day.

alastairq

When completing a proposal for car insurance...as an example.....the insurer is only interested in a very limited amount of information concerning the applicant's driving record, with regards to the Law.

They are apparently not interested in offences reported and dealt with, 10 or 20 or so years ago.

Neither are they interested in adverse claims that occurred well in the past.

It could be said, what occurred long ago is of little relevance today?

The fact is, like it or not, Bankruptcy actually stays with the ex-bankrupt, even beyond the grave.

Yet, criminal convictions cannot even be enquired about after a certain point.

Bankrupts are not treated equitably.