Should bankrupts complain to GoCompare.com?

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Fine, if that's what others believe I will stop my efforts. I thought a small bit of work from everyone is all I would need. It is clear although I have set groundwork with MP and MEPs, contacted the ICO and entered into talks with Neil Hamilton, others are either defeatest or cannot be bothered.

Over to you, here is where I bow out. Good luck to those who do keep on.

fiveyearplan

ben500 wrote: »

I'm not nor ever have been bankrupt, I'm interested in why someone would think that I am a higher risk than a bankrupt?

No one is suggesting you are a higher risk we are just wondering why you'd be a lower risk than someone who has never been bankrupt themselves but who lives with a discharged bankrupt or than someone who was bankrupt a number of years ago.

MicheH

CitySlicker wrote: »

Fine, if that's what others believe I will stop my efforts. I thought a small bit of work from everyone is all I would need. It is clear although I have set groundwork with MP and MEPs, contacted the ICO and entered into talks with Neil Hamilton, others are either defeatest or cannot be bothered.

Over to you, here is where I bow out. Good luck to those who do keep on.

Now who is being defeatest Hey mate, don't let the views of a little old stay at home mam put you off track. I'm the only one here who isn't right behind you.. yet! Doesn't mean I don't 'support' what you're doing it's just that I am on a journey right now, I've done a lot and I mean a lot of soul searching lately and i'm not in a place to think of anything other than making sure I and my family are ticking along.

Carry on with it. It's something you feel so strongly about - do not let what I say put you off.. I mean me?! I havn't a clue what day it is half the time.. fight for what you believe in .. always

ben500

fiveyearplan wrote: »

No one is suggesting you are a higher risk we are just wondering why you'd be a lower risk than someone who has never been bankrupt themselves but who lives with a discharged bankrupt or than someone who was bankrupt a number of years ago.

Perhaps because I have demonstrated that I have managed my life's finances in a successfull manner to date, whilst in all other options you offer the element of bankruptcy is involved in the household financial structure is surely an indication of higher risk with differing degrees perhaps. There is clearly an element of historical financial difficulty in each.

debtinfo

Obviously bankrupts have a history of financial difficulty but does that mean they are more likely to need to claim on their home insurance, does it mean they have more fires, are burgled more often, are more likely to be flooded

whereas a person who had a conviction for insurance fraud would eventually have that wiped from their record and would not have to declare it

nervousmother

So maybe its because bankrupts have more bad luck than a none bankrupts, so with more bad luck there is more chance of my house burning down or me smashing my car up?

Sorry ben but what utter rubbish.. you managing your finances better does not mean your less of a risk.
A person who's partner has died may think they handled their finances fine, same as someone who came down with sickness, someone who was made redundant with a mortgage still to pay.. somone whos partner has just walked out. Plenty of reasons why a person could end up being bankrupt yet they managed their monthly finances just fine at one point.

My bankruptcy was due to a very large shortfall (136k) when my and OH split up.. does not mean i dont manage my finances.

So_Sad_Angel

Surely its an `actuarys` job to ascertain the risk potential of any element to general insurances.....the insurance companies only use the data that they are provided with.

Having worked in insurance for many years I fully accept that BR does have a negative effect on premiums however I would be interested if anyone could locate any `acturary` figures/data that would offer a definative explanation.

Maybe then lobby somewhere like the Actuary Magazine if the figures don`t add up?

MarkyMarkD

I totally understand your points, blind-as-a-bat, but unforunately from an insurers' point of view the idea of convictions for fraud becoming spent is bad, and they are not going to voluntarily extend that to things where they don't have to.

I know most of you on the thread won't like it, or believe it, but insurers operate in a competitive market. At the end of the day, if one insurer charged too much of an increased premium for bankrupts, another insurer would compete against them by NOT adding an increased premium, if there genuinely was no increase in risk.

That's the way insurance pricing in a competitive market works - anyone who charges too much for a risk will only get a tiny amount of business, so eventually they'll be forced to reduce premiums.

But, conversely, anyone who charges too little for a risk, will go bust in the end. And that's what would happen if there was genuinely an increased risk of claims from bankrupts, and an insurer chose to ignore that increased risk.

And (another comment that most of you won't like) it may be argued that bankruptcy involves walking away from your financial liabilities - breaking your agreement to repay various debts you've incurred. That is pretty obviously, IMHO, seen as an indication that you might not be too bothered about a bit of insurance fraud if you get into financial difficulties once again. I understand all the "once bitten, twice shy" arguments, but I can see why an insurer would not believe them.

RichesToRags

Marky

Firstly there are a limited few insurers who don't discriminate against bankrupts and they seem to be doing pretty well in the business world, I have to admit I'm no expert in the field though.

The majority of bankrupts don't just 'walk away' from their financial commitments, that's far to simplistic an analysis, although no doubt considered a reasonable evaluation for those who don't want to know the reality of bankruptcy for most.

Also I seriously fail to see a connection between being unable to service your debts and committing a crime. Being financially bankrupt does not make a person morally bankrupt.

By your logic anyone who walks out on any commitment be it a job, relationship, a partly decorated room, has the propensity to commit crime. People break agreements they've made every day, hell my daughter broke her agreement to wash the dishes, maybe she's out now robbing a few houses.

Seriously though, there are many people who think the way you do and I can understand where you are coming from. Insurers and the like use this kind of misinformed and misguided opinion regarding bankrupts to excuse their discrimination. It's not based on logic and fact, not even on manipulated statistics but speculation, fabrication and the fact that BRs are an easy target.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say I 'disliked' your comments I just disagreed with some of them. Anyhow I'm off to forget I've left the chip pan on and to 'walk away' from that full tin of paint I've left precariously on the stairs.

Thatcher44

Well done for highlighting this, a ridiculous and totally unwarranted discrimination.