Disability Discrimination Act 2005

poet123

zppp wrote: »

To be fair it is not about rubbishing the OP, it is people giving their opinions based on the information on hand. Would you like to tell us how you are qualified to advise the OP, as you seem to be 'rubbishing' other people's opinons?

No, because legal advice is best not given on a forum, and any detailing of quals may lead to greater weight being accorded to any comment than it would be correct to encourage. Suffice to say it is Father's Day and I have a houseful of people who have used this as a discussion point over dinner

Nor am I rubbishing the opinions of anyone, unless saying it is unwise to be categorically negative when you are not actually sure, counts as such?

I am merely saying that the Op may have a case and that she should seek independent advice.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

No, because legal advice is best not given on a forum, and any detailing of quals may lead to greater weight being accorded to any comment than it would be correct to encourage. Suffice to say it is Father's Day and I have a houseful of people who have used this as a discussion point over dinner

Nor am I rubbishing the opinions of anyone, unless saying it is unwise to be categorically negative when you are not actually sure, counts as such?

I am merely saying that the Op may have a case and that she should seek independent advice.

Categorically negative, or categorically real?

poet123

TFD wrote: »

Not sure why it would have been overturned, they don't want to issue to somebody who is unemployed. That's their right.

We've already discussed the OP's ignorance of suggesting that unemployment is usually a choice!

Again, you miss the critical distinction between "unemployed" and "unemployable", and the possibility to change one state and not the other.

In some cases unemeployment is a choice, disability never is. Obviously that is not the norm though, and I am sure that is not what the OP meant to imply.

We are going round in circles here, the OP needs legal advice, and should act on that and not on commentary on a forum, where people may have their own agendas for steering someone down a certain path.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

We are going round in circles here, the OP needs legal advice, and should act on that and not on commentary on a forum, where people may have their own agendas for steering someone down a certain path.

Agendas? I think that you seem to have the agenda here. I think I am smelling a troll...

poet123

zppp wrote: »

Categorically negative, or categorically real?

Well, when asked to state categorically that the OP would not have a case, and that legal advice was a waste of time at least one poster declined to make that assertion.

Would you like to do so?

poet123

zppp wrote: »

Agendas? I think that you seem to have the agenda here. I think I am smelling a troll...

Ah, the last refuge of those unable to continue an argument :T

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

Well, when asked to state categorically that the OP would not have a case, and that legal advice was a waste of time at least one poster declined to make that assertion.

Would you like to do so?

OK. But you say on one hand we cannot give legal advice here and on the other you want it. Nah. I think this trolling is becoming repetitve and I for one am fed up of arguing with you.

Theboysmum

"...get her son to do what every other unemployed 27 year old has to do when beginning to build a credit score"

- what, you mean, like get on his bike and find a job? He'd love to do that, unfortunately, he is permanently disabled and unable to ride a bike, so that's not really an option. If employment is the only route to building a credit score, I guess he just has to accept that he will never qualify.

"OP's ignorance of suggesting that unemployment is usually a choice"

- the inference is not that becoming unemployed is a choice but that remaining so for the rest of your life contains an element of personal choice, it is not usually completely intractable whereas becoming permanently disabled means that you will remain that way for the rest of your life i.e. you cannot change your status regardless of what you do.

Thank you Poet123 for your comments, you are largely correct in all that you surmise.

Fang_3

Theboysmum wrote: »

"...get her son to do what every other unemployed 27 year old has to do when beginning to build a credit score"

- what, you mean, like get on his bike and find a job? He'd love to do that, unfortunately, he is permanently disabled and unable to ride a bike, so that's not really an option. If employment is the only route to building a credit score, I guess he just has to accept that he will never qualify.

"OP's ignorance of suggesting that unemployment is usually a choice"

- the inference is not that becoming unemployed is a choice but that remaining so for the rest of your life contains an element of personal choice, it is not usually completely intractable whereas becoming permanently disabled means that you will remain that way for the rest of your life i.e. you cannot change your status regardless of what you do.

Thank you Poet123 for your comments, you are largely correct in all that you surmise.

No, I mean get a pre-paid card, a mobile phone contract and maybe a catalogue account, and then use diligently and sensibly for a year/18-months and then re-apply for a credit card. This has already been mentioned but discounted by yourself for whatever reason. But I'm curious, how will he become self-employed if he can never work again? You really do need to answer your many inconsistencies to get proper advice.

I think we're all agreed that you should seek professional legal advice. If only for !!!!!! and giggles for us.

savagej

No you go to his bank and change his status to retired, which he is and you put it down in all future application. This would solve the problem in the longer term, as someone said he is not unemployed but unemployable, he may well be unemployed but he is of independent means. Looking at the dictionary defintion of retired and this I cannot see where the problems lies.