Why isn't this classed as disability discrimination?

KJ2009

Due to the current financial climate combined with the cost of Christmas, today I had to seek a loan using guaranteed cheques, I heard many cheque cashing stores exist for this purpose and charge between £10 and £15 per £100 cheque written. I have been on the highest level of Disability Living allowance for years. The benefit has been classified as "Indefinite" There is no end date where it is up for review. My income is £240 per week and to make sure I could prove this I contacted both the Disablilty Living Allowance and also Income support in order to obtain letters stating which benefits I was on, what my current income is and the fact that it is indefinite. I also have a valid £100 Cheque guarantee card and cheque book.

I was going to "The Cheque Shop" in my local town as I had been told they were the cheapest interest charges. The website stated I just needed proof of ID, proof of address and a valid cheque guarantee card / chequbook. So basically I was looking forward to a small loan to ease the crippling month of January. However, when I went into the store and politely said I had brought everything necessary to apply for a loan using guaranteed cheques as security (I had I.D up to my eyeballs of every kind including last address) They turned me away as soon as I said I wasn't employed but on long term Disability benefits.

They wouldn't look at a single document I had brought with me. Now this really got me thinking because I was the perfect customer for them, my income is at a reasonable level £240 p/w, the income is indefinite and I feel looking back at the situation that they discriminated against me purely because I was too disabled to have a job.

How is that not Disability discrimination? I then went into Cash converters to ask them, they were much more sheepish when telling me I couldn't apply and they said they will be installing a computer system in a few months which may be able to accommodate applicants like me. The member of staff at cash converters definitely was uneasy about the fact that they were turning away an applicant based on the condition of their health (Which prevents possibility of work). I found that very telling. Anyway to end the story Harvey and Thompson accepted me straight away and even though this method of lending is very expensive you should have the right to apply for one providing you present documents proving a fixed income. When I got home I rang one more pawn broker, Abemarle & Bond (Who claim to provide a discreet lending service then paint their shop exterior black and bright yellow!) and they said they would not look at an application by somebody claiming Disability Living Allowance but they did concede that Disability benefits are more secure than Jobseekers allowance for example.

The whole point of writing a guaranteed cheque to these imbeciles is that they get their money no matter what. In fact I think the only way a guaranteed cheque is not paid is if the chequebook/card is reported stolen. So why the hell do they want all this stuff anyway?

So I look forward to any suggestions why that is not blatent disability discrimination
Thanks

Morglin

I've got no experience of these 'money shops', but certainly mainstream lenders don't discriminate.

DH and I (both on private pensions, IB and DLA) have never been rejected for any sort of finance, in fact credit card companies and our bank continue to try and sell us loans and cards we don't want - could it be that these moneyshop's computer system just isn't set up for an applicant not having an employer?

Which would mean it would affect those retired and just unemployed and wouldn't, therefore, be disability discrimination - just that they require ALL applicants to be in work. Many disabled do work, and I don't suppose they have a problem with these places.

But, I do agree, you would think they would welcome those who's income is probably more secure than those in work, at the moment.

But, if you think you have been discriminated against, purely because of disability, then you can contact these people:

http://www.aboutequalopportunities.co.uk/discrimination-and-disability.html

Lin

[Deleted User]

I dont feel this is discrimination as people on DLA are not the only people on refused. It is people who rely soley on state benefits as income, disability related or not. A couple with 8 kids could be on the same level of benefits income, not disability related and they would also be refused.

Thats has nothing to do with disabiltiy more to do with the stats on the unreliability of benefits, their insurers information that many people on benefits do not repay, government stats that people on benfits are in the worst poverty and unable to meet basic needs. Hence would they be abel to meet loan payments.

BTW an indefinite award of DLA does not mean indefinite. You can be called to review at any point and have the award kept as it is, reduced or stopped. Look on the benefits or disability boards, you can see this has been happeneing a lot lately. You could also get some wonderful new treatment (not knowing what your disability is of course) and have to inform them of an improvement and be reduced. These places or rather their head offices know this.

Oh and being on the highest rate of DLA does not automatically mean you are too disabled to work. It just means you have additional needs and need care and/or support
I and plenty of others recieve DLA to meet additional needs and work full time. These places then allow DLA income to be inculuded in their sums as it is not sole income and the wage is the stable income.

CLAPTON

State benefits are supposed to cover your essential living costs so in theory there is no surplus to repay loans.

There are of course numerous threads here from people on state beenfits of various forms arguing that they were 'mis-sold' loans, as the lender should have known that people on state benefits can't possibily afford to repay them.

sillystudent_2

Tbh I definitely don't think this is disability discrimination, they've 'discriminated' against you because you're unemployed, which as a lender they're perfectly entitled to do. After all, how do they know you can repay these loans if you don't have any kind of job? (benefits are for living costs only, as other posters have said.)

As the 'loans' are cheque-guaranteed, the shop won't lose out, however banks will refuse to guarantee cheques to them if they have high numbers of defaulters - therefore they're just protecting themselves.

I don't see how this is discrimination - anymore than if I (as a student) went into a Ferrari dealership to buy a car on finance and they turned me down but approved some six-figure income Cityboy, how would that be "discrimination"?

And I'm sorry to sound slightly blunt here but from the sound of it they were just being responsible lenders - after all, if you couldn't afford Christmas before, how on earth were you going to afford next Christmas, when loads of your disability benefit was going on debt repayments?!

Hope this helps

Apples2

Unfortunately I have to agree with the above posters.

Although genuinely sympathetic to your situation, I find it abhorrent that the money being paid out in benefits, not only covers complete financial support for day to day living, is also is enough to repay loans.

Joyful

If you have a cheque Guarantee card was your bank not able to give you a temporary overdraft?

RobertoMoir

Frankly they are entitled to choose who to lend to, and I have to say your ranting about them being "imbeciles" 'cos you didn't get your way does little to make me sympathise with you. You're not entitled to a loan, none of us are.

I'd say not lending to someone whose sole income relies on benefits, as inconvenient as it is for the people caught in this net is basically responsible lending, which is entirely sensible of them given the current economical crisis. After all, should someone on benefits have trouble repaying the loan their recovery options are very limited, which automatically makes such a borrower a poor risk, not the "perfect customer" you imagine.

As for it being discrimination against the disabled, I seriously doubt it. I'm sure that if someone who was disabled but in employment went in there they would be perfectly happy to entertain their application and process it based purely on their income and credit rating as opposed to their level of fitness.

hullight

I think it's discriminatory that you're on more money than me and I work 35 hours a week, but that's down to this government.

Benefits shouldn't be used to repay loans, there can be major problems down the line.

Bored_Advisor

Lenders are allowed to set there own requirements based on risk profiles so they could in theory refuse anyone without it being classed as discrimination if they can show a link, for example lenders who set a minimum age of 21 rather than 18, or for that matter lenders who set the minimum age at 18 when in scotland you are legally allowed to take out a mortgage at 16.

That being said good companies will take disability benefit though not other unemployment benefits for a lot of products, the downside there being that since you only earn £240 a week it might not be high enough for a lot of mainstream lenders.

sadly the only thing I can say is these cashconverter style companies and short term loan companies set very high charges as they deal with those of extreme risk, and you are far better off delaying anything which doesnt need to be paid instantly rather than go to these companies, where there is an urgent need companies may be willing to negociate on payments and the benefit office may also offer hardship loans to you which are far cheaper and sometimes can be in the way of benefits you dont have to pay back.

marmitedog

I don't think coming on here and stating you get £240 pw DLA when you are numerate, literate and clearly able to use a PC will elicit the best response to be honest.

As others have said, you are very risky as the recovery options for the lender are practically non existent.