We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Disability Discrimination Act 2005
Comments
-
I really cannot see how the lender is breacing the DDA. I prospective customer has no income other than benefits. The prospective customer has his essentials purchased for him by his trust rather than a regular and defined income. The prospective customer has no assets (they are locked into a trust) and no credit history or track record.
The prospective customer is IMO being treated as someone with no regular or defined income, no assets and no track record. Disability has nothing to do with it. He was declined on application without disclosing his disability, when he did disclose his disability the lender treated him the same. They did not treat him differently because he has a disability.
To the OP. Does your son feel he should be treated differently because he has a disability??MF aim 10th December 2020 :j:eek:MFW 2012 no86 OP 0/2000
0 -
LilacPixie wrote: »I really cannot see how the lender is breacing the DDA. I prospective customer has no income other than benefits. The prospective customer has his essentials purchased for him by his trust rather than a regular and defined income. The prospective customer has no assets (they are locked into a trust) and no credit history or track record.
The prospective customer is IMO being treated as someone with no regular or defined income, no assets and no track record. Disability has nothing to do with it. He was declined on application without disclosing his disability, when he did disclose his disability the lender treated him the same. They did not treat him differently because he has a disability.
To the OP. Does your son feel he should be treated differently because he has a disability??
The son was declined on the basis of his income being derived from benefits, benefits that were deemed as transitory despite them being permanent enough for a court to order compensation.
Therefore, he is not unemployed, but unemployable, and as such entitled to "reasonable adjustments" under the DDA. The issue is not that he is on an income level which precludes him from a card, if it was there would be no issue, it is that the income is not deemed to be from a suitable source, which as he has no control over this could be deemed a breach of he DDA.
It is certainly not clear cut.0 -
Actually that is incredibly constructive advice. The sense of entitlement is staggering and it will only serve to get people's backs up.
That depends on which story the OP is giving you believe. Whether he has a low income but will one day be working, or that he has a higher income than two working adults, but no credit history. So it is constructive advice, just not for the story which you believe.;)
It will only get the backs up of people who have an axe to grind, I am a taxpayer and have no issue with those who are entitled to adjustments under the DDA receivinf them. Why should I ?
Again, it is the source not the amount of income that is at issue.0 -
It will only get the backs up of people who have an axe to grind, I am a taxpayer and have no issue with those who are entitled to adjustments under the DDA receivinf them. Why should I ?
Again, it is the source not the amount of income that is at issue.
How can you possibly know that? You don't, is the simple answer.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.0 -
Of course, but she hasn't take legal advice, she's come here with an ever-changing story and an unwillingness to take advice that doesn't aid her cause.
It's not levelling the playing field. The playing field is level. At this bank if you are unemployed and are on benefits then you can not have that card. Regardless of reason. Would it be fair for the OP's son, who it appears does not actually need a credit card, would get a credit card because he is disabled, and yet someone who is unable to get a job, for whatever reason, is not? The answer is no, it would not be fair.
Consistently ignoring constructive advice, an ever-changing story, general aloofness in posts that appear to be designed to stir up emotions... I could go on.
I think the OP comes across as articulate and thoughtful, not aloof, nor stirring. Again though, I fail to see why her posts would stir up emotions, and what emotions? jealousy,? annoyance? what emotions do you refer to?0 -
The son was declined on the basis of his income being derived from benefits, benefits that were deemed as transitory despite them being permanent enough for a court to order compensation.
Therefore, he is not unemployed, but unemployable, and as such entitled to "reasonable adjustments" under the DDA. The issue is not that he is on an income level which precludes him from a card, if it was there would be no issue, it is that the income is not deemed to be from a suitable source, which as he has no control over this could be deemed a breach of he DDA.
It is certainly not clear cut.
How can you possibly know why he was rejected? Because of income, or source of income? The OP doesn't even know that.0 -
I think the OP comes across as articulate and thoughtful, not aloof, nor stirring. Again though, I fail to see why her posts would stir up emotions, and what emotions? jealousy,? annoyance? what emotions do you refer to?
That does not surprise me. I would have thought that to be articulate one would have to keep one's story straight? Something that the OP has failed to do. I think the other poster had this right with you needing to have the last word.;)0 -
How can you possibly know that? You don't, is the simple answer.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The OP states that her son was refused because the income was derived from benefits, and as those benefits were classed as relating to unemployment and so were deemed transitory that was the reason.
Even when the bank were told the OP was not unemployed but unemployable due to disabilty, and that a court had awarded comepensation on the basis of loss of future career, which meant the benefits were for a lifetime, they still refused to take account of the benefit income.
What do you not grasp?0 -
That does not surprise me. I would have thought that to be articulate one would have to keep one's story straight? Something that the OP has failed to do. I think the other poster had this right with you needing to have the last word.;)
I will reply as long as someone posts, isn't that what a forum is for ?0 -
The OP states that her son was refused because the income was derived from benefits, and as those benefits were classes as relating to unemployment and so were deemed transitory that was the reason.
Even when the bank were told the OP was not unemployed but unemployable due to disabilty, and that a court had awarded comepensation on the basis of loss of future career, which meant the benefits were for a lifetime, they still refused to take account of the benefit income.
What do you not grasp?
The benefits obviously do not add up to enough income to clasify him for credit card under the banks requirements. Full stop.
And even if he is just on the edge of fulfilling the requirments, he hasn't got any history. Nothing to do with being disable, disable for life, disable for little while or anything. He is just in "too much risk" category.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards