Should bankrupts complain to GoCompare.com?

skylight

At least GoCompare quoted for me today - 14 out of 60. (And the best price ones were OK).

Confused.com didn't return a single quote!!! (Who also asked the BR question, but also wanted to know when)

Off to try moneysupermarket

RichesToRags

Kerry12345 wrote: »

Mark is correct. Insurers work on risk and we all fall into groups when we have insurance. Insurers base their quotes on things like gender, age, whether you have claimed before (even if it was a no fault claim in the case of a vehicle), how many times you have claimed, where you live, what your marital status is, what job you do, bankruptcy, flat roof % (house insurance).

ie An under 25 year old male will be given a very high quote for car insurance because statistics show that people in this range claim more. Unfair to those in this bracket that never claim, but insurers don't know who the good guys are and can only base their risks on statistics or they will go bust.

I knew a bookie who had to pay a really high premium on his car insurance, yet had never claimed on on his insurance. He was in a high risk group and paid the price for others in that profession that had claimed a lot.

Exactly, no argument with the facts of your post. As you say, statistics show that these are high risk categories. However I cannot find any statistics which demonstrate that personal bankrupts are more likely to commit insurance fraud. There appears to be no evidence to suggest that past BRs have been disproportionately convicted of insurance fraud and therefore make BRs a high risk category.

Marky suggested that bankrupts simply 'walk away' from their commitments and as such insurers will deem that they won't mind committing a bit of insurance fraud too. That sounds like misguided speculation to me, which was what I was referring to.

Additionally once over 25 the driver will not have to declare whether he lives with someone under 25. If the Bookie changes jobs he won't have to declare he was once a bookie for the rest of his life, his wife won't have to declare she is married to someone who was once a bookie...

This is where the discrimination comes in, although not a criminal offence, the question 'have you or any memeber of your household ever been bankrupt?' is asked by insurance companies and be it yesterday or 20 years ago, be it you or your 90 year old disabled mother-in-law, you have to tell them and it can affect your premium.

MarkyMarkD

The sort of data you are talking about would not be in the public domain. Insurers have vast banks of data about customer behaviour. Many of the general insurers have been in business for hundreds of years, and they really DO have a good idea what is going on with regard to claims frequency.

I totally agree, that the basis for any premium loading would likely be fraud rather than increased incidence of theft/accidental damage/whatever.

I said that people would not like my speculation about those who "walk away" from their commitments being prepared to do a bit of insurance fraud. But the real point is that insurers do not price on speculation, but on fact.

As Kerry said, there are many forms of "discrimination" which are allowed for insurers. Sex discrimination is specifically allowed in pricing insurance, even though most forms of sex discrimination are not.

Similarly, almost every form of "discrimination" is allowed, in pricing insurance. The only exceptions that I am aware of are those based on sexual orientation and racial origin. And, if I recall, the sexual orientation thing isn't actually a legal prohibition, but an ABI agreed practice.

So, it might be worth lobbying the ABI to seek a further agreement between their members not to discriminate against the BR, or those associated with them. But I cannot see that they will bow to the moral pressure, to be honest.

debtinfo

Just a thought, many of the posts have stated that the insurers price on the back of years of collected data. Whilst this may be true to a certain respect, would it also be fair to say that they also price as much as they can get away with. They would not say dont worry you don't need to pay me that much because i think your classification will be low risk, they say how much can i charge you before you will go elsewhere.

That being said when it comes to bankruptcy that level is raised because in general the stigma attached to bankruptcy means that most bankrupts (or families of bankrupts) do not want to shout about it, therefore despite what the risk data may say this is one group of people who they can squeeze without losing business

RichesToRags

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The sort of data you are talking about would not be in the public domain. Insurers have vast banks of data about customer behaviour. Many of the general insurers have been in business for hundreds of years, and they really DO have a good idea what is going on with regard to claims frequency.

I totally agree, that the basis for any premium loading would likely be fraud rather than increased incidence of theft/accidental damage/whatever.

I said that people would not like my speculation about those who "walk away" from their commitments being prepared to do a bit of insurance fraud. But the real point is that insurers do not price on speculation, but on fact.

As Kerry said, there are many forms of "discrimination" which are allowed for insurers. Sex discrimination is specifically allowed in pricing insurance, even though most forms of sex discrimination are not.

Similarly, almost every form of "discrimination" is allowed, in pricing insurance. The only exceptions that I am aware of are those based on sexual orientation and racial origin. And, if I recall, the sexual orientation thing isn't actually a legal prohibition, but an ABI agreed practice.

So, it might be worth lobbying the ABI to seek a further agreement between their members not to discriminate against the BR, or those associated with them. But I cannot see that they will bow to the moral pressure, to be honest.

I don't dislike your speculation per se, it has generated some good thought provoking discussion in my opinion, I just don't agree with it.

So as this data apparently held regarding a personal bankrupts predilection for insurance fraud is not in the public domain, you are assuming that such data exists on the basis that insurance companies will not discriminate simply because they can?

However there are insurance companies, some quite well known, long standing ones that do not discriminate against bankrupts. Are they not aware of this elusive data?

I think the problem we have here is we will continuously go around in circles with this issue as I would like to see some empirical evidence before I assume that one person is more likely to commit insurance fraud than another. Whereas you believe the evidence must already exist based on the practices of some insurance companies.

Stalemate - I've always been rubbish at chess.

MarkyMarkD

It's not a question of "elusive data". Insurers' loss data is their own commercially sensitive data. They don't share it with others - they have spent time and effort to gather it.

And once again, YES I totally am assuming that insurers will not discriminate "simply because they can". They are not vindictive, and they don't discriminate for the sake of it. That is not commercially rational.

Some may have good claims experience from bankrupts and their associates, and not price discriminate. Some may price in such a way that it is such a minor factor it is not worth worrying about. Others may have incurred terribly high levels of claims - and refuse to insure bankrupts at all. Each of those may be the right commercial attitude to take.

out_of_cash

sorry i totaly disagree with the insurance debate,i see this as just another way to get people further in the crap again just as many banks did to get people here "BR" in the first place, a case of the the old boys network banks taking over insurers and using that position to claw back more from the people who have previously gone br and shaft them with heavy premiums speaking for myself i had a 28 year unblemished credit history before br, when i was made unemployed the banks didnt give a s_ _ _ _ and insurers bent over backwards not to pay out .Banks have already created a stink for themselfs so maybe its the insurers turn.:rolleyes:

brighter_side_of_life

hi

I have just emailed Go Compare - i think it is unjust and unfair. This is what I wrote incase some of you would like to use it and adapt it for future reference... I agree, the more of us that complain the more will be done about it. Come on everyone - lets speak out.

Hi

I am writing to say how shocked I was to receive just 4 or 5 quotes from companies who will cover me as I have been bankrupt. The rest just stated they were unable to insure me.

GoCompare.... I ask you - is this fair? After all, Insurers 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?

I feel I am a respectable decent and honest person; I have NEVER made an insurance claim in the last 10 years and NEVER fallen behind on any of my loans. My circumstance for bankruptcy was due to a divorce which left me financially destitute. Having got back on my feet again I am devastated to find that I am penalised by some insurance companies who raise their premiums in light of my situation.

Please, I ask you to lobby users of your service to reconsider and allow people who suffered bankruptcy (many through no fault of their own) to be treated the same as any other potential client.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards

MicheH

Emailing GoCompare is not going to get anywhere in my opinion. Isn't it just a 'search engine' platform? Just like I would use kelkoo to search for the best price on an Iggle Piggle blanket?