Is it time for legislation to protect BRs ?

property.advert

In the last few months my research here and elsewhere has been invaluable to me as I consider my next move but one thing leaves an awful taste in my mouth and that is the discrimination BRs receive from financial and non financial institutions even after they are discharged.

I'm sure I haven't come across all the problems but let's look at a couple. We'll start with insurance.

Just what makes a discharged BR unsuitable for insurance or such a greater risk that they premiums are hiked massively ? Well, let's look at it. The property is the same risk so all the factors which are relevant to the address stay the same. All the insured items remain the same. In fact, everything stays the same except for the implied heightened propensity to make a claim because the policyholder is a discharged BR.

I deal with financial risk and I've looked at this and the only thing I come up with is that the insurers think you are going to put in a false claim or deliberately make a claim on the policy. As both of these are criminal offences, then they are criminalising discharged BRs.

I will help them out a little as I suspect much of their historic data stems from a time when going BR was a much greater issue than now and it was akin to fraud. I can understand that, but the modern bankrupt is really unlikely to be a fraudster and has probably been irresponsible with finance given out all to freely, probably by the very same institutions who are now wanting to penalise them for being BR !

I do not see the risk is necessarily increased. By the same token I do not see that having someone in the house who is a convicted murderer increases the risk but I do believe having a thief in the house generally does increase the risk. To put BRs in with general thieves is wrong and BRs need to be protected from this discrimination.

Another one which comes up is employment. Now I understand that being a financial advisor should probably be a precluded occupation for a while at least following BR but assuming that all BR, discharged or not are a security risk or any greater risk than any new or current employee is just not right. The assumption seems to be that BRs will steal from the company or in some way hurt the company. Working in a call centre for non financial advice for example should not be restricted.

I'd be interested in anyone who has faced specific discrimination together with anyone who knows of any past legal challenges or even the defences which insurers and employers (and anyone else) hide behind. We're not talking about complaints because Videoblue (exmaple) won't give you a mobile phone contract which is understandable because you failed to pay them last time but for regular stuff, where BRs should not be penalised as they pose no different risk to non BRs.

Please post up with your comments.

blind-as-a-bat_2

property.advert wrote: »

I deal with financial risk and I've looked at this and the only thing I come up with is that the insurers think you are going to put in a false claim or deliberately make a claim on the policy. As both of these are criminal offences, then they are criminalising discharged BRs.

I will help them out a little as I suspect much of their historic data stems from a time when going BR was a much greater issue than now and it was akin to fraud. I can understand that, but the modern bankrupt is really unlikely to be a fraudster and has probably been irresponsible with finance given out all to freely, probably by the very same institutions who are now wanting to penalise them for being BR !Surpriseing that isnt it...not, you could think it was being used just to try get there money back couldnt you.:rolleyes: But have they thought, obtaining money under false pretence is fraud, if they can not prove the higher risk, they could in fact be seen as commiting a criminal offence

I do not see the risk is necessarily increased. By the same token I do not see that having someone in the house who is a convicted murderer increases the risk but I do believe having a thief in the house generally does increase the risk. To put BRs in with general thieves is wrong and BRs need to be protected from this discrimination.Do they ask if there is an ex criminal in the house anyway? I dont think they do, as i am sure i read somewhere it is against legeslation too



I'd be interested in anyone who has faced specific discrimination together with anyone who knows of any past legal challenges or even the defences which insurers and employers (and anyone else) hide behind. We're not talking about complaints because Videoblue (exmaple) won't give you a mobile phone contract which is understandable because you failed to pay them last time but for regular stuff, where BRs should not be penalised as they pose no different risk to non BRs. Me too

Please post up with your comments.

But so far the responce from at least one MP's has been you should be greatfull you could go BR and put up and shut up

Unfortunatly the predjudice goes deeper than you think:rolleyes:

By the way, do they ask if you have had a DRO or IVE, both forms of insolvancy the same as BR?

Do they ask if your in financial dificulties and on a DMP, or if you have defaults?

Nope

So that throws any thought or justification that we are a higher risk because of our financial past out the window really doesnt it :rolleyes:

tigerfeet2006

There is a thread around some where on this board where we are writing to our MP's.

Will go have a look for it.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1854585

Itsallgonepearshaped

The main discrimination I've faced is on the job market. I had my own business for 3 years which all went a bit wrong and led to my bankruptcy. Most of my experience before that as an employee was working as a management accountant for various financial institutions and I've been trying to get back into there with no luck. It's not even the BR that counts against you, RBS for example won't even let you submit a CV if you haven't got an excellent credit rating so any defaults count against you. To me it's a bit pot and kettle seeing as the banks are themselves bankrupt and would be out of business if it wasn't for the taxpayer bailing them out! The funny thing is if they'd let me work for them on the kind of salary I used to be on , there would have been no need for me to go BR as I would have been able to pay them back ...

lisamummytoarchieplusbump

well im a discharged br and im on benefits so im seen as a bigger risk, was even told this by an insurance company

and one didnt care about being br but didnt like it that i was on benefits lol

this was for contents insurance by the way

Sinderella

Did you manage to get contents insurance and if so with whom? Will need to know once I go through the process myself. Cheers!

fatou256

lisamummytoarchieplusbump wrote: »

well im a discharged br and im on benefits so im seen as a bigger risk, was even told this by an insurance company

and one didnt care about being br but didnt like it that i was on benefits lol

this was for contents insurance by the way

this was my problem too even one company quoted us 3000 pounds :eek:

tigerfeet2006

Just rang to get insurance for our tent and one of the questions asked was are you BR? So I asked why they asked that question and they said that if I wanted to pay monthly it would have to go via their lost adjusters for approval, she couldn't tell me if the premium would be higher if I was.

Though it was only £55 per annum so I whipped out my Co-op DEBIT card and gave her the numbers and she said that's an electron and you need to be present for it to go through. Had a discussion about it being a debit card, used to be electron though and she said their systems hadn't been updated not Co-op's fault. So I whipped out my trusty Cashplus Gold Mastercard and paid with that

alastairq

So I whipped out my trusty Cashplus Gold Mastercard and paid with that

don't forget to make a claim.....just for all the trouble they've caused you.

vardmac

property.advert wrote: »

In the last few months my research here and elsewhere has been invaluable to me as I consider my next move but one thing leaves an awful taste in my mouth and that is the discrimination BRs receive from financial and non financial institutions even after they are discharged.

I'm sure I haven't come across all the problems but let's look at a couple. We'll start with insurance.

Just what makes a discharged BR unsuitable for insurance or such a greater risk that they premiums are hiked massively ? Well, let's look at it. The property is the same risk so all the factors which are relevant to the address stay the same. All the insured items remain the same. In fact, everything stays the same except for the implied heightened propensity to make a claim because the policyholder is a discharged BR.

I deal with financial risk and I've looked at this and the only thing I come up with is that the insurers think you are going to put in a false claim or deliberately make a claim on the policy. As both of these are criminal offences, then they are criminalising discharged BRs.

I will help them out a little as I suspect much of their historic data stems from a time when going BR was a much greater issue than now and it was akin to fraud. I can understand that, but the modern bankrupt is really unlikely to be a fraudster and has probably been irresponsible with finance given out all to freely, probably by the very same institutions who are now wanting to penalise them for being BR !

I do not see the risk is necessarily increased. By the same token I do not see that having someone in the house who is a convicted murderer increases the risk but I do believe having a thief in the house generally does increase the risk. To put BRs in with general thieves is wrong and BRs need to be protected from this discrimination.

Another one which comes up is employment. Now I understand that being a financial advisor should probably be a precluded occupation for a while at least following BR but assuming that all BR, discharged or not are a security risk or any greater risk than any new or current employee is just not right. The assumption seems to be that BRs will steal from the company or in some way hurt the company. Working in a call centre for non financial advice for example should not be restricted.

I'd be interested in anyone who has faced specific discrimination together with anyone who knows of any past legal challenges or even the defences which insurers and employers (and anyone else) hide behind. We're not talking about complaints because Videoblue (exmaple) won't give you a mobile phone contract which is understandable because you failed to pay them last time but for regular stuff, where BRs should not be penalised as they pose no different risk to non BRs.

Please post up with your comments.

I too have been the victim of discrimination because I am a discharged bankrupt. I work in the general insurance industry as a commercial insurance broker but because of my past bankruptcy cannot get a job. Every company credit checks you even though I will have no dealing with money or investments. I am trying to go it alone at the moment but cannot even get a business bank account (mentioned in another thread) and the FSA will not confirm if I can get authorised without me shelling out £1500.00 which is non-refundable.

Question is can anything be done about it?

Sinderella

Do you know if I could be discriminated against for going for legal jobs such as - legal assistant/legal secretary/paralegal?

I want to retrain after bankcruptcy but don't want to if it would be a complete waste of time, unless after the 6 years when my credit files are clean I would be able to do those kind of jobs.

How can I find out?


Thanks