Confused.com - The most pathetic question ever!

[LeFran]

Part of the confused.com application for home insurance, 'Have you ever been declared bankrupt or in an IVA'. What the hell has that got to do with it and surely if a premium is unpaid then the cover stops so they don't loose out anyway and not at risk! What a weird world with some weird people! They can stick their cheap Brian toy up their a****!

[ilikewatch]

I would assume that some insurers consider (probably quite rightly) that those in financial difficulties pose a higher fraud risk.

Also, when insurance is supplied on a "pay monthly" basis it is usual that the entire premium cost is loaned by a third party finance company,so it is quite right that they would want to be aware if any potential customers were insolvent.

[lifenoteasy]

The stats plus experience from people specialising in obtaining funding seems to suggest that those in an IVA or post IVA are more likely to keep to an agreement and are actually less of a financial risk.

Also those in an IVA need stability which is one of the reasons why they stick to the same company therefore providing them with more business.

Shop around - confused.com does not give the best rates anyway - just companies that find it easy to advertise on there.

I'm convinced that someone in the next couple of years will realise there is a whole potential market where ex IVA people are potentially "cash rich" because they can't do anything with the money.

[ilikewatch]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by lifenoteasy

The stats plus experience from people specialising in obtaining funding seems to suggest that those in an IVA or post IVA are more likely to keep to an agreement and are actually less of a financial risk.

I'd be really interested to see the statistics that you reference above - do you have a link to them?

I'm not able to provide any evidence to back up my thoughts, but my responsibilities have previously included vetting applicants for nationally sensitive roles - we certainly regard that those in financial difficulties (whether subject to a formal arrangement or not) pose a considerably heightened risk as they are more likely to commit fraud or other dishonest acts due to financial pressures, they are also far more vulnerable to coercion and blackmail from enemy states and criminal organisations.

Anecdotally, we found that those subject to formal insolvency proceeding are far more likely to be actively problem gamblers - another red light when assesing risk.

Also I think that where insurance is concerned, someone subject to an IVA may be more likely to make a legitimate claim - for example, now I have finished my IVA if I was involved in an accident which wrote my (very cheap, old)car off I would probably not bother claiming because of the effect it would have on future premiums. Whilst in my IVA I would certainly have claimed as I would not have been able to find the several hundred pounds needed to source a new car without an insurance settlement.

[lifenoteasy]

I think that I will hold my tongue now.

[sprowstonboy]

Your insurance policy will require you to notify insurers of any incident that MAY give rise to a claim. It is not for you to decide whether to notify as this information is used for underwriting at renewal, to not notify insurers in order to gain a lower premium is FRAUD!!!!!!!

[ilikewatch]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by sprowstonboy

Your insurance policy will require you to notify insurers of any incident that MAY give rise to a claim. It is not for you to decide whether to notify as this information is used for underwriting at renewal, to not notify insurers in order to gain a lower premium is FRAUD!!!!!!!

If that was directed at me please re-read my (unedited) post - I never suggested I would not notify my insurer of an incident, I said I "would probably not bother claiming" - it's quite possible and common to notify an insurer of an incident for information purposes, without making a claim.

Of course if another party was involved in the incident (and they normally are) you would be crazy not to notify your insurer because it would come back to bite you on the bum months down the line when the other party decided to put in a claim for compo backed up by a concocted story and witnesses to show they weren't at fault.

I have previously notified my insurer of a non-fault non-claim incident with no affect on my current or subsequent premiums. had I chosen to claim the cosmetic damage would almost certainly have meant my car was a write off and would probably have increased future premiums.

[Adam Davies]

Hi

Shop around as I am sure that not all insurers will ask the specific question about an IVA.

Regards

[abbiesmum2003]

I would think someone who has taken the responsible step to face financial crisis and get a formal legally binding arrangement in place to manage finances and have a budget in place to pay essential
outgoings was less risk than someone relyibg on credit and not able to finance lifestyle. In times of financial hardship people may turn to silly irrational opportunities to make a few quid one situation could well turn out to be insurance fraud so to say people in arrangements are more risk i think is not necessarily right. And as for saying people in atrangements are gamblers is very judgemental! We are a hardworking family who simply got swamped by offers of credit and poor budgetting skills.
As for a supplier on home insurance, we applied to Aviva while in iva. Very good level of cover and pay monthly installments.

[grimswold]

ilikewatch, I think you have just proved your own point that anyone can get into financial difficulty including yourself Even people who vet others can have problems.

And, as you say, people in an IVA are more likely to make a legitimate claim.

So ironically your post bears out what lifenoteasy said.


Sorry, no offence whatsoever intended it was just an observation.

[ilikewatch]

I never said that:

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by abbiesmum2003

people in atrangements are gamblers

I said that I had observed that "that those subject to formal insolvency proceeding are far more likely to be actively problem gamblers"

Unfortunately I can't reveal my source, so you can take this with a pinch of salt, but...

Roughly 0.5% of the UK population are considered to have a gambling problem, in the total population I looked at we would consider that just over 1% had an active gambling problem (Our demographic contained a high proportion of men in their 20's and 30's who are probably more likely to gamble). However, when looking at those individuals subject to IVA's and bankruptcy we would find that approximately 4% were considered high risk due to problem gambling.

So, from our sample it showed that those in formal insolvency arrangements were almost 4 times more likely to be problem gamblers.

[grimswold]

That's relative risk and as such is inaccurate.

In absolute terms:

Out of 100 people not in IVAs 1% have a gambling problem therefore 99% of the population do not

Of 100 people in IVAs, 4% of the population have a gambling problem. Therefore, 96% do not

This means that statistically, people in IVAs are NOT four times more likely to have a problem.

They are 3% more likely to have a problem

[ilikewatch]

I won't carry on replying in this thread - of course we all have different opinions, and the forum would be a boring place if we didn't! My final thoughts are:

Of course I realise that many people in an IVA have: (to quote abbiesmum2003) "taken the responsible step to face financial crisis and get a formal legally binding arrangement in place to manage finances and have a budget in place to pay essential outgoings."

However - many, many (possibly even the majority?)haven't - I think on this forum we are used to seeing IVA'ers who are probably far better informed about the arrangement than is "normal". A huge amount of people in IVA's had the arrangement aggresively sold to them when they felt they had nowhere else to turn and don't fully understand the ins, outs or even formal nature of the agreement.

Although it sometimes might not seem like it, insurance companies want to sell insurance! If an insurer is asking the question about bankruptcy/IVA's there is a reason for this - they have decided that it varies the risk that the proposer poses to them and so has to be a factor when calculating the premium or whether to offer credit facilities - if it wasn't relevant they wouldn't ask!

At the end of the day I won't be able to back up my theory with evidence, but I firmly beleive that someone in a formal insolvency arrangement poses a heightened risk to an insurer, just like young people, single people, professional sportsmen and numerous other customer types all pose a heightened risk and pay higher premiums.

[lifenoteasy]

Lies, damn lies and statistics spring to mind.

[grimswold]

I agree, ilikewatch. Especially with the idea that we on this forum are better informed than most. We're pretty lucky to know of the existence of this place and to have each other to bounce ideas and thoughts off. As most of us know, the support with the PJG Creditfix sale has been invaluable. It was fun to have a think about the statistics, nothing more. As an academic I have been taught to look very closely at what I see so I do apologise if I have caused any offence, it was never my intention. It's just fun to play with the figures; after all none of us can do anything about the way we get screwed over by big business anyway and the way they present information is a good example of this in action.