Issued Credit Cards whilst on benefiti

NickX

churchrat wrote: »

you would think that it is easy to get help if you are "dim" and cannot control your own money, but that is far from the case. I help a cousin, who has been assessed as having a learning disabiltiy and so is officaily "dim". He also has his own house, left to him by his mother.

He has been subjected to several "scams" both legal and illegal, since her death in 2000. I say scams when talking about the legal ones because it is obviuos when talking to him that he has learning difficulties, this does not prevent him from being "offered" countless loans etc by his bank (perhaps who see a nice fat easy commision). I am now a counter signatory to his account, which is very difficult as I live miles away from him.

It is not as easy as you would imagine to get power of atterny over someones life, and nor would I want to, I wanted a socail worker to offer independent help, but none are available. In short, it is very easy for someone who is "dim" to get themselves into a mess and find that there is very little help for them. This does not mean that they are irresponsible or fraudulent, just that they do not understand all the ramifications of thier actions.

To the OP--they will need more help than you can give them, and I would say that CAB are the best bet, but please make sure that they understand what is being said to them. Some local councils offer advice to peolpe in debt and on benefits, perhaps check your local website. You said that your friend worked for a local charity--could they help?
good luck with this, it can be difficult.

An excellent post IMO :T

It is not always as straight forward as people think. Some people just do not understand the finer details of finances, loans and debt and to simply have the opinion that if they agreed to take out the debt, then their inability to repay is their own fault does seem rather narrowminded to me.

PROLIANT

NickX wrote: »

An excellent post IMO :T

It is not always as straight forward as people think. Some people just do not understand the finer details of finances, loans and debt and to simply have the opinion that if they agreed to take out the debt, then their inability to repay is their own fault does seem rather narrowminded to me.

if the person has some form of mental disability then they cannot be held 100% responsible and should be met half-way I would say, but if it is another get-out clause from having to think for them selves then they should step up to the plate and get it sorted! No excuse for the "dim" person, I know several "dim" people and that is because they are stupid and thick...naturally, but they still manage to go to work and pay their way, I think from what the OP has described that his two friends are maybe mentally disabled in some way, may not be very severe in effect but enough to impair judgment.

churchrat

PROLIANT wrote: »

if the person has some form of mental disability then they cannot be held 100% responsible and should be met half-way I would say, but if it is another get-out clause from having to think for them selves then they should step up to the plate and get it sorted! No excuse for the "dim" person, I know several "dim" people and that is because they are stupid and thick...naturally, but they still manage to go to work and pay their way, I think from what the OP has described that his two friends are maybe mentally disabled in some way, may not be very severe in effect but enough to impair judgment.

can I ask when you would decide that a "dim" person is just "stupid and thick" as opposed to having some form of mental disability?? Is it because somebody else has told you that they have a problem??
I ask because my cousin--the one who is officaily dim--used to be stupid and thick until I had him assessed by social services, and lo and behold he now has a learning disability. He used to be "thick as s**t" (a term used to describe him by a former employer) but now nobody would dream of using such terms to describe him (at least to his face). Nothing else has changed, except he now has a label. He manages to work and pay his way, but is not capable of running his own affaires.

I have found your answers interesting as they reflect the attitude of many people we meet, although it is often difficult to get an honest answer.
I appreciate that this is not really a topic for this board, but I think that the subject of mental capacity and credit will become even more pressing in the months to come.
I'm not judging, just curiuos.
thanks

dmg24

churchrat wrote: »

can I ask when you would decide that a "dim" person is just "stupid and thick" as opposed to having some form of mental disability?? Is it because somebody else has told you that they have a problem??
I ask because my cousin--the one who is officaily dim--used to be stupid and thick until I had him assessed by social services, and lo and behold he now has a learning disability. He used to be "thick as s**t" (a term used to describe him by a former employer) but now nobody would dream of using such terms to describe him (at least to his face). Nothing else has changed, except he now has a label. He manages to work and pay his way, but is not capable of running his own affaires.

I have found your answers interesting as they reflect the attitude of many people we meet, although it is often difficult to get an honest answer.
I appreciate that this is not really a topic for this board, but I think that the subject of mental capacity and credit will become even more pressing in the months to come.
I'm not judging, just curiuos.
thanks

This is something that I have come across also. I know of a man who received assistance from social services after he got brain damage in a car accident. However, after some time of claiming DLA and IB, it was decided that he no longer required any assistance (those that know and live with him know that this is not the case). He went from being disabled and receiving assistance and sympathy from those that dealt with him (as a result of the accident he could become very aggressive), to someone who was expected just to get on with life with no support. Sadly, he now spends most of his time in and out of custody, which was certainly not the case when he had ss intervention.

Having said that, I know of several people that I would class as 'dim'. However, none of them have a mental disability as such, they are just of low intelligence.

Hippocampus

Ember999 wrote: »

I have never heard of a credit card application that doesn't either ask for the employer details or ask for a figure which represents a joint family income! Whoever is giving you this information is telling porkies if you ask me. It seems they maybe 'lied' on the application and if it transpires that they were indeed on 'benefits' when they applied and the lender was unaware of this, so could not make a uniformed choice as to their likelihood of repaying the debt, it amounts to FRAUD :mad:

A certain credit card company who shall remain nameless, but have BARCLAYCARD at the top of their paperwork, had a habit at one time (maybe still do) of apparently picking names out of a hat and sending out PRE-APPROVED application forms to all and sundry. Quite clearly they could not have done any prior checking before issuing these forms, as I was in receipt of one, and being in severe financial difficulties at the time, grabbed this lifeline with both hands.

YES, I could, and should, have said no, and binned it. But I filled it in anyway and sent it back to see what would happen. Of course, a nice shiny new card popped through the door, so I gave it a try and filled up my car. And got the week's shopping. And bought something nice for the missus, because I could always stop using it and pay it all off later before I got into difficulties.

Except, I didn't. I ran it up to its max, then lost my job.

Now, call me cynical. But Barclaycard obviously couldn't have done any credit checks prior to sending me an unsolicited pre-approved application, because I'd have failed if I'd tried. Miserably. So in other words, what I SUSPECT they did was, a mass marketing ploy, based on the fact that it didn't matter if they caught a few wronguns. Because they could always take defaullters to court if worst came to worst.

If that IS the case, then clearly, that is IRRESPONSIBLE LENDING. And might even make the relationship between lender and customer that of an unfair relationship. Contrary to the UTCCR (Google it). Interesting to note what a judge may make of that if it ever came to court.

So why do I mention it? Purely because some financial institutions CAN and DO turn a blind eye to whether their nice new customers are creditworthy or not. In the full knowledge that human nature being what it is, a certain percentage (probably very high) will max out that plastic, foolish though they may be by doing so.