Should bankrupts complain to GoCompare.com?

4$£&*(£$&*(!

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

They don't have to prove anything. They are running a business. They aren't doing it simply to be spiteful and to think that they are doing so is simply daft.

They are doing it because they have historical claims records which show them that there IS a greater propensity to claim from those who have been made bankrupt. So they charge higher premiums.

I think you have missed the point. Businesses can operate as businesses but they must do this in line with the law. For insurers they must charge reasonably and justifiably, not just what they like.

Or are you suggesting it is fair that an insurer can penalise someone who has never been bankrupt yet someone in the home once was (no matter how long ago)? That sort of logic defies me and if this is truly your view you are in a tiny minority on this board.

MarkyMarkD

There is absolutely no case law at all to indicate that insurers must charge reasonably or justifiably. Insurers each define their own risk factors, based on their own claims experience. They then make an offer to each customer based on their circumstances, which the customer may accept or decline.

You obviously have a jaundiced view because of your circumstances, but I'll say again (the bit you have ignored) which is that insurers do not price for the fun of it, they price to make a sensible return. If they charge more for bankrupts, it is because their genuine experience is that bankrupts (or people who have ever been bankrupt) are indeed more likely to claim.

It's not a penalty, so your "suggestion" as to my view is irrelevant. It's a price for a product which you can choose not to buy if you don't like it.

Fortunately, being in a minority on this board and being wrong, are not always the same thing. And, clearly, the opposite.

fiveyearplan

Marky - CitySlicker is specifically challenging why a person who has never been bankrupt is charged more just because he lives with someone who was bankrupt in the past. That is what he sees as the most unfair - although also unfair at all for a bankrupt to be asked that question for the rest of their lives just because insurers can ask that question. They cannot ask a criminal, once their conviction is spent, if they have ever murdered/raped/stolen/burglared etc so why should they ask a bankrupt when that isn't even a criminal offense?

What if you were to meet someone and get married or live together and she never told you she had been bankrupt 20 years previously. Then you have a fire in your home and you have paid your insurance premiums for all those years and they say they won't pay out because your wife/girlfriend had been bankrupt before - would you think that was fair?

stebiz

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

There is absolutely no case law at all to indicate that insurers must charge reasonably or justifiably. Insurers each define their own risk factors, based on their own claims experience. They then make an offer to each customer based on their circumstances, which the customer may accept or decline.

You obviously have a jaundiced view because of your circumstances, but I'll say again (the bit you have ignored) which is that insurers do not price for the fun of it, they price to make a sensible return. If they charge more for bankrupts, it is because their genuine experience is that bankrupts (or people who have ever been bankrupt) are indeed more likely to claim.

It's not a penalty, so your "suggestion" as to my view is irrelevant. It's a price for a product which you can choose not to buy if you don't like it.

Fortunately, being in a minority on this board and being wrong, are not always the same thing. And, clearly, the opposite.

I have sympathy with the OP but also understand exactly what you are saying. So if, and I say if, that is their experience, the question must be why would Bankrupts or Ex bankrupts make more claims. Are they just unlucky, or are they more likely to put in a fraudulently claim??

If as I assume, it is the latter, then why would that happen. Maybe they are on their downers and skint. In which case is this likely to happen with certain other categories like 'certain groups' of single parents (obviously not all single parents). They have this information without actually asking the question, simply by you answering the questions on the form. I know it is business, but it is this type of thing that gives Capitalism a bad name. IMHO.

Question is? If you fit into another 'group of people' and they too make more claims are you likely to be overcharged too. Race, Colour, Age, Employment Type, Widower, Single Parent etc etc It opens up a whole can of worms!!

Stebiz

out_of_cash

will send email to go compare this is all a bit much.

nervousmother

Me and OH have not claimed on any house insurance in about 10 years!! I think i had my car window replaced about 8 years ago but that didnt effect my no claims... why should i be penalised for having to go BR?
believe me since the BR i look after my stuff alot better than i did before...

stebiz

nervousmother wrote: »

believe me since the BR i look after my stuff alot better than i did before...

I can well believe what you are saying. It is like a wake up call and a second chance, all in one go. I think most ex BR's think that way too.

thechippy

I'll send an email....

What a load of tosh. Why is a br / ex br a higher risk? Bloody nonsense.

Most br's have quite a nasty time leading up to the br which could have taken months or years. Most will take advantage of the fresh start and be WAY more careful in the future.

When bankrupted, you come out owing nothing to nobody and with a bloody big shock to be more careful in the future.

Quite frankly, I would deem an ex br to be a better risk than a lot of others.
I have friends who drive around in flashy cars, have big tv's etc - all on credit. Fine, they are making the payments at the moment, but should they have a small change in circumstance, then that could change quickly.

An ex br owes nothing and is a bit wiser from the experience if you ask me, so is a lesser risk. Personally I think that the descrimination is an excuse for profiteering....

MicheH

milothewestie wrote: »

five year plan i see your point but its not my job to do there job,if i had an accident they would not stand a chance if challenged in court unless they asked if i was bankrupt as they didnt i dont need to declare anything:beer:hny:beer:if we allow insurance companys to take the preverbial !!!! they will

milo, it's not their job. The owness is on US to inform insurance companies of any change and bankruptcy is one of the changes that they could use to make a claim null and void should you need to claim. The ball is always in their court and it's our job to make sure our backs are well and truelly covered - the wheedling little g*ts

Oh dear, should have read the whole thread, I have spent too much time worrying about insurances or utilities for that matter, now I simply do my research and look into what the companies are going to charge and whether they will insure me at all or whether I could possibly pay by direct debit monthly.. I'm tired of fighting this and find that being honest, getting every thing in writing to cover my back is as far as I need to go with it. I am bankrupt, I have financial baggage, I accept that insurances are going to charge me for that, rightly or wrongly.. insurance is all about risk and history states that as a bnkrupt I am a risk - if I don't like what i see I don't go for the policy. We're never going to change this in my opinion, by lobbying gocompare just won't do anything other than having some employee having to sift through the email inbox. Buy or not.. don't fret or get annoyed - it's just the way it is.. make your life simple by just accepting really. I too have been annoyed by it but it's game and a game involving risk.. there's never going to be any hard and fast rules

alastairq

why do so many have such a hang-up about insolvency?

When in reality it is simply a process of financial settlement, given certain circumstances.


so, why the need to see BR's punished for their sins?


When they haven't commited any criminal act, by this process.......cetainly no more than divorce.......which could be seen as a similar cop-out?


Insurers are discriminating against a certain economic category...plain and simple.

They do so safe in the knowledge that they can hide behind their bureacracy.

BR's are easy targets....soft targets....less well organised, by their very nature, compared to other consumer types.

They should be treated with equal fairness, based on risk.


and if they do present a higher risk ? [not sure how I can be a low risk one day, and a high risk the next?]

then the insurers should be interested enough in their customers, to openly show how they've calculated that risk



but then, did I weep for the Lloyds names who lost so much over the past years....?????


answers on a postcard please.