Non-binary customers win compensation for being asked if they are male or female

[IwantToRetire]

Financial services firms have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation to non-binary customers over “discriminatory” application forms.

MoneySuperMarket (MSM), the comparison website, and Transunion, a credit union, were hit with separate complaints because their application forms did not include options for non-binary customers in their gender section.

Both cases were escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which awarded the complainants compensation for “distress and disappointment” incurred from the forms.

MSM was ordered to pay £200 to unnamed non-binary customer Mx B who was asked if they were male or female.

The company’s website did acknowledge the omission in an explanatory note and asked non-binary customers to refer to their sex at birth when asking for quotes, the complaint read.

Full article (originally from the Telegraph) at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/non-binary-customers-win-compensation-for-being-asked-if-they-are-male-or-female/ar-AA1rHO3M

I'm up for a group claim.

I don't have a gender identity, the fact that the form assumes that feelings in my head that I don't have, matter more than my biological sex discriminates against me on the basis of the Woriads belief that sex matters.

Forms that are presented that way are offensive because they indicate that the companies that adopt that language don't see female humans as worthy of a category.

This!!! WTF

The FOS is quite quick as well, I've been helping a neighbour with his FOS complaint and it's only been weeks but the FOS has already decided that the company he's complaining about are in the wrong. (I think they aim to resolve in about 12 weeks, but don't quote me). So we could have a late New Years party with the money!

I am very interested in how this plays out in insurance forms because the sex of the insured ought to be a risk factor in certain insurances, not gender identity.

Anyone under the 'trans umbrella' is now deemed a protected and vulnerable person.... why are these supposed adults acting like spoilt entitled children ???

I just don't get why they are pandered to so ridiculously???

Maybe we should start suing companies for offending us for not including sex as an option on forms.

I have a feeling that, under the EA, insurance companies are no longer able to charge different prices because of sex. Thus young women, who previously benefited from lower prices on their car insurance, as young women drive more carefully than young men, no longer pay less.

Somehow, even laws designed to promote equality still end up penalising women.

It struck me the other day, eating an “all you can eat” breakfast in a bar, that men get, on average, a better deal as they eat more, but don’t pay more. But when it comes to hairdressing and clothes, women end up paying more as it’s a “different product”, as if somehow, the “women’s products” cost more, even when they don’t.

Since 2012 insurance companies are not allowed to make sex (or "gender" as it's universally referred to) a factor when calculating premiums.

So I've no idea why they ask the question in the first place.

I am definitely up for claiming against companies that ask gender but not sex

Somehow, even laws designed to promote equality still end up penalising women.

Equal pay isn't. The examples PriOn1's gives aren't equitable. Pensions were 'equalised' at a higher age for all (instance of men remaining neutral and women being penalised).

One of my personal grumbles is the amount that we pay for a criminal justice system that is mostly centred on men as offenders and those who deliver all the services around it (Police, offender management, the courts). I'm generalising wildly here but I'm in a grump.

“It struck me the other day, eating an “all you can eat” breakfast in a bar, that men get, on average, a better deal as they eat more, but don’t pay more.”

This is why I refuse to pay for Premier Inn breakfast. I’m not paying £11 to subsidise a bunch of blokes with their plates piled high when I only want egg on toast.

Just the other day, a form asked me to fill in my Legal sex with two options, Male and Female.

First time I've seen that. It's certainly better than asking your gender. But I have been thinking why that and not just sex. I guess there's less chance of lying when asked about 'legal' sex specifically?

I didn't think gender identity was a protected characteristic in the EA - I thought gender reassignment was. Is non binary gender identity same as gender reassignment? I thought that Stonewall had been criticised for conflating the two?

I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

Given it's all about the data and probability, it seems odd that this rule applies. Although of course the insurance company aren't going to protest that they "need" to charge women the higher premiums too.

Presumably they'd get in to hot water over age as well, if challenged on that.
It's one thing given a no claims discount (which is indirectly linked to age) but I wonder if they are still allowed to give a 17 year old a higher premium than a 30 year old, in the case where both are new drivers. Again, the only winner here would be the insurance company if they did apply (or already have applied?) the same logic as with sex, because they would make it "fair" by raising the 30 year old driver's premium exclusive of NCD to match that of the 17 year old.

There have been at least two judgements in court about this.

In the latest one, January 2024, the judges said
"For the reasons given in this judgment, we have decided that whenever the GRA refers to “gender” it refers to a binary concept; that is, to male, or to female gender. The GRP, accordingly, had and has no power to issue a GRC to the Claimant which says that they are “non-binary”."

Yes and why do they need to know if I'm divorced! Maybe I could sue them for upsetting me by making me relive the experience every time I fill in a form!

The rule about gender i.e. sex in insurance and pensions is the result of a ruling by the European Court of Justice.

No such ruling has been made on age, as is evident in areas like travel insurance.

Mucks? Said in a friendly northern accent, a short form of "mucker" as in "me old mucker". While backing away carefully and avoiding eye contact.

Ms is normally pronounced Miz so logically Mx would be pronounced Mix.

That's how I'll be pronouncing it, if I ever have to.

I recently filled out a form that had titles on a drop down menu. My title wasn't listed. Who do I complain to?

My title is just 'Miss' by the way, they had every title but that.

Thank you.

The fact that no ruling has happened about age really does highlight the absurdity of it. Premiums for insurance are meant to follow data-driven logic, which is how we all end up with a quote specific to our own circumstances. Health insurance too. It sounds like this data-driven approach applies to everything except someone's sex. Bonkers.

The rule about gender i.e. sex in insurance and pensions is the result of a ruling by the European Court of Justice.

Yet another Brexit benefit missed then - it could be repealed ....

Of course eg life insurance firms need to know your sex - not so much your gender! Slightly think it serves them right for using ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’. Hopefully other organisations will take note, work out what they actually need to know and ask the correct question. Otherwise, if they don’t offer astrogender, I’ll be speaking to my lawyer… 😆

Be curious if any life insurance/assurance firms lose money because they fucked up the questions.

I bet somehow they don't. (And the taxpayer would obviously bail them out anyway).

According to the Supreme Court website,
"The UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union made after 11pm on 31 December 2020. The UK courts, including the Supreme Court, may have regard to the Luxembourg Court's decisions if relevant, but they are not generally obliged to follow them."

IANAL so I don't know whether the UK parliament would have to pass legislation to exempt the UK from decisions made before 11pm on 31 December 2020 such as the insurance ruling.

Even if so, the Tories disapproved of the ruling (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-insurance) but didn't do anything about it in 2021 or after.

Labour, for all their populist "never rejoin EU / single market / customs union" stance, will certainly never change it - they want to appear "progressive".