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

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Bingo, Alistairq, that's exactly the foundation of my argument. Bankrupts are not treated equally when other groups are. This is discrimination.

I hope before long to post news that the EU President shares this view and we can reach some common sense legislation across Europe to stop this discrimination, given our home grown politicians have been unwilling to help so far.

TheGardener

Hi City Slicker - I sent you a DM but cant find it in my folders - can I ask if you received it?

4$£&*(£$&*(!

TheGardener wrote: »

Hi City Slicker - I sent you a DM but cant find it in my folders - can I ask if you received it?

Yes I have thanks, I have sent off an email briefly outlining this work - that would be a great way to highlight the issue.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I have a brief update on this from the EU Commission.

This is a submitted question: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2014-005630&language=EN

Here is the response:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2014-005630&language=EN

Essentially the way I read the response is the recent judgement about right to forget in Spain (the one that caused all the kerfuffle on Google removing links) can also apply to bankruptcy data.

I have written to the Information Commissioner to point out The Gazette is retaining what I consider to be irrelevant information and provided them with the full and final response the Gazette gave me when I wrote an email to ask they remove data and they refused (totally expected but I needed the email to confirm).

Hopefully this means bankrupts can start to apply for their details to be removed or redacted from The Gazette, however I appreciate I'm talking about a publication that is several hundred years old so there's likely to be a lot of resistance to this. Far easier is a piece of legislation to say financial and insurance organisations cannot take bankruptcy into account beyond so long as it is irrelevant data.

How long data ages before it is irrelevant is subjective. So far the periods tend to be 6 years as this is when it falls off credit records, 3 years in line with EU entrepreneur rules, 1 year in line with a standard bankruptcy AD. Any which way it shouldn't be more than 6 years in my opinion.

I understand this is going to put my argument as a test case with the ICO but let's see what happens. I have written back to the MEP who has helped me with this response to ask if they can feed my views on bankruptcy into the study set to complete by the end of this year.

As always I'll keep people posted on here. Would love other people to contact their MEPs to ask them to write about the bankruptcy study and why you think the current position is unfair; if you are writing to your MEP mention it is in relation to EU Parliamentary Question E-005630/2014.

I have found out when writing to my MEP's:

- UKIP blew my request straight out the water, their reply to me was their position is the EU has no place in UK politics.

- Conservatives said their policy is to have lesser links with Europe so they cannot help me.

- Labour was the party who raised this issue for me as a parliamentary question.

This isn't a political statement but you'll possibly find mixed levels of support if you do help by writing to your MEP. And please post how you get on here, thanks!

iquit

Thanks for keeping this issue at the forefront of the political/legislative forum. I have previously written to my MP, his response is in this thread somewhere. So should I write again? I'm happy to do my little bit.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

iquit wrote: »

Thanks for keeping this issue at the forefront of the political/legislative forum. I have previously written to my MP, his response is in this thread somewhere. So should I write again? I'm happy to do my little bit.

Yes I would write again, it's election year next year so perhaps now we have the EU studying what other member states are doing now is the time our homegrown politicians need to take action. The line I would take is this issue continues to affect bankrupts when applying for mortgages or loans, and damaging entire families when a bankrupt lives at that household for home insurance costs.

I've said it to politicians at all levels - I am not against financial groups being aware of additional risks and charging accordingly, but let's get that level of risk right. When I started this thread five years ago you could have argued at the time my partner had just been discharged from bankruptcy, but since then there's all the years my partner has kept excellent finances with a credit report to support this.

In other words as I sit typing away today, OH's bankruptcy has absolutely no relevance of their financial situation back then. To reflect this, insurers and lenders I feel should stop asking the question about bankruptcy after a set time. If you can get that to your MP in your words that would be great, maybe even link them into this thread to see how much people want this issue to be changed.

fermi

More than a bit ironic paragraph on this government site

http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/takedown-policy.htm

The panel will approve continued withdrawal of the material only if one of the following criteria is met:

...........

The material is personal information about someone who is still alive and continued online access would be unlawful or unfair to them under the Data Protection Act 1998, would breach their or their family's right to a private and family life under the Human Rights Act 1998, or would constitute a breach of trust as demonstrated by the case of the Insolvency Service, where information concerning insolvent debtors is intended to be removed from the service's own website in its entirety after six months

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Here's a New Year's Day update for you as I haven't been able to update the thread in a little while.

I have still been battling away at this one behind the scenes. The latest group I have asked for support is Liberty. It's a long shot as my understanding is their approach is far more fundamentally human rights, but let's see what they say.

My MP has been in touch with the FCA. Initially in their letter the FCA reiterated their message to my MP that insuring bankrupts whether discharged or not remains a commercial decision. They then advise the FCA's general approach to commercial decisions is based on the same principles as their predecessor FSA, they are aware my experiences are not unique.

As such they are currently researching market practices that may have an impact on insurance pricing. The aim is to give them insight and evidence what makes for better or more effective disclosure at renewal, and the research trial is set to complete in early 2015. Subsequent results will be published in the summer and will be used to promote good customer outcomes.

I would say now could be a good point for those interested to feed directly into this research. The email to use is consumer.queries@fca.org.uk and my suggestion would be to start by saying you are aware Simon Green, the Director of General Insurance and Protection Supervision Division, is currently researching market practices that have an impact on insurance pricing. Then go into what the problem means for you - how long you have been bankrupt, what price premiums you have faced, the inconvenience of making phone calls or missing out on the best deals especially if it is a relatively old bankruptcy involved.

Lastly I have asked my MP to consider reviewing existing consumer insurance legislation to see if there is remit to put in timed restrictions in this case.

As ever I will keep people posted. What I would ask is for other people to help. Get your MP to write to Simon Green at the FCA, that would be a huge step. Put it in your own words and paint a story, make the politicians see how much this issue affects you. Remember it's an election year and MP's will want to persuade you to give you their vote, use this issue in discussions with them.

Working together we have all made a difference on this so far. Over the past five years I have been working on this we have gone from no-one talking about this, to it being covered in newspapers and radio shows. I have seen lots of links to this very thread posted on other sites across the internet. The FCA have said outright my individual experiences are not unique so by the work of others we have influenced the regulator. I believe we are nearly there and just need to work with a final push.

Let's use this election year to make that push happen, if you have five minutes today remind your MP we're here and we're not going away!

debt_doctor

Hi CitySlicker,


The amount of work you have put in to this does you proud, and I fully support you.
Seems we are getting nearer - I will talk to my MP.


DD

fermi

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/policies/removing-notices

We understand that the fact of personal insolvency can cause individuals distress, and we receive many requests for the notices about personal insolvency to be removed from The Gazette.

However, the publication of bankruptcy orders in the Gazette is governed by the Insolvency Rules. Once made, the order is required by law to be gazetted (rule 6.46) making the notices available to the public as evidence of the conduct of discharged or undischarged bankrupts. The order is therefore a statement of fact at the time of issue, and a matter of public record.

If you believe that the content of the notice is inaccurate then contact the Insolvency Practitioner responsible for your case. Notice placers are responsible, under our terms and conditions, for ensuring that notices are factually accurate. Our role is to ensure that notices are only placed by people with the authority to do so.

Though we will not remove notices from The Gazette, we will ensure that notices are blocked from search engines such as Google after a six year period has elapsed, and the information is no longer required by credit referencing agencies. This will be done automatically for you.

Nice of them.

They used to block all access from search engines, so yet another backward step.