Disability Discrimination Act 2005

LilacPixie

poet123 wrote: »

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.

I agree it is not clear cut however I disagree with your assesment of him being unemployable. The OP herself said he hopes to become self employed in the future but employment is looking unlikely because employers may look at his condition unfavorably from a H&S point of view.

I would say her son is not unemployable. He obviously has a desire to work and will do in the future be it self employed or maybe employed if he can find a sympathetic employer

I have no idea what benefits he receives but I am hazarding a guess at HR DLA with a life time award. You can receive DLA at any rate and still be working with no effect on your benefit. Knowing this I would suggest that if your assertation its the source of his income that is an issue then the source in question is the trust because after all it doesn't provide and income it purchases the nessecities with the OK of the trustees

I wouls expect the lender to treat everyone with no assets and a variable (low) income and no trakc record the same regardless of their physical or mental status.

poet123

Any wrote: »

The benefits obviously do not add up to enough income to clasify him for credit card. And he has no history. Full stop.

He most likely hasn't got enough income to clasify for credit card. 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.

He apparently has a higher income than his mother, and she got a card from a provider who had turned her son down.

He has a current account with an O/D facility.

My son, a graduate but with no job at that time, and only a student account with an unused o/d facility (and nothing at all in the way a credit history or salary) was given a cc card unsolicited by his bank.

So, set against that info , it is not as clear cut as it may first appear.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

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?

The OP also stated that the benefits may not be for life. You can't pick and choose.

Incidentally, the DDA 2005 states that it is for facilities for banking services. They do not have to make special arrangements for use of credit, and they can not and should not be forced to give credit to anyone.

Any

I personally think that the OP's son should firstly try with his bank. Speak to his branch manager. He/she will be able to tell him what exactly is the issue as I imagine "benefits=not enough income".

The OP herself stated that the income from trust fund are irregular and cannot really be clasified as income as such. Well, then the argument that he has enough income goes out of the window doesn't it.

With some things (such as trust) you can't have it both ways. You can't say "oh there is loads of money"...but really they can't get them out. It is the same as arguing with people who say "my company (which is LTD) makes sooo much money, how come I can't get credit. And then when asked they say "oh, I don't pay myself wages. Just dividends or minimum income so to pay as little tax as possible".

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

He apparently has a higher income than his mother, and she got a card from a provider who had turned her son down.

He has a current account with an O/D facility.

My son, a graduate but with no job at that time, and only a student account with an unused o/d facility (and nothing at all in the way a credit history or salary) was given a cc card unsolicited by his bank.

So, set against that info , it is not as clear cut as it may first appear.

Which begs the question whether he actually needs a credit card? Which he doesn't, but the OP refuses to grasp that point. I wonder why her son is not asking? Perhaps this is a case of 'mummy trying to sort out everything without bothering to actually ask her son'?

Fang_3

Any wrote: »

I personally think that the OP's son should firstly try with his bank. Speak to his branch manager. He/she will be able to tell him what exactly is the issue as I imagine "benefits=not enough income".

The OP herself stated that the income from trust fund are irregular and cannot really be clasified as income as such. Well, then the argument that he has enough income goes out of the window doesn't it.

With some things (such as trust) you can't have it both ways. You can't say "oh there is loads of money"...but really they can't get them out. It is the same as arguing with people who say "my company (which is LTD) makes sooo much money, how come I can't get credit. And then when asked they say "oh, I don't pay myself wages. Just dividends or minimum income so to pay as little tax as possible".

Exactly. But I'm sure there will be another excuse forthcoming soon.

poet123

LilacPixie wrote: »

I agree it is not clear cut however I disagree with your assesment of him being unemployable. The OP herself said he hopes to become self employed in the future but employment is looking unlikely because employers may look at his condition unfavorably from a H&S point of view.

I would say her son is not unemployable. He obviously has a desire to work and will do in the future be it self employed or maybe employed if he can find a sympathetic employer

I have no idea what benefits he receives but I am hazarding a guess at HR DLA with a life time award. You can receive DLA at any rate and still be working with no effect on your benefit. Knowing this I would suggest that if your assertation its the source of his income that is an issue then the source in question is the trust because after all it doesn't provide and income it purchases the nessecities with the OK of the trustees

I wouls expect the lender to treat everyone with no assets and a variable (low) income and no trakc record the same regardless of their physical or mental status.

it would appear from what the OP said that it is because he is designated as unemployed, and the benefits in that case are deemed transitory, however in his case he will be on benefits for life, as evidenced by his award.There should be an adjustment made for applicants in this situation.

His award will be in trust to shield it from means tested benefits that may be required in the future, which is why it is inacessible to the son.

Any

poet123 wrote: »

He apparently has a higher income than his mother, and she got a card from a provider who had turned her son down.

He has a current account with an O/D facility.

Apparently... I am confused to be honest, as the story changed so many times. He has loads of money, then he can't get at it... If the banks are getting the same message as I am then no wonder he is not getting credit.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

it would appear from what the OP said that it is because he is designated as unemployed, and the benefits in that case are deemed transitory, however in his case he will be on benefits for life, as evidenced by his award.There should be an adjustment made for applicants in this situation.

Why? He is still on benefits. He still doesn't meet the criteria.

poet123 wrote: »

His award will be in trust to shield it from means tested benefits that may be required in the future, which is why it is inacessible to the son.

Doesn't this strike you as being unfair? Taxpayers are funding this person's lifestyle despite this person having enough money to pay for it themselves. It doesn't seem very fair to me at all.

Any

poet123 wrote: »

it would appear from what the OP said that it is because he is designated as unemployed, and the benefits in that case are deemed transitory, however in his case he will be on benefits for life, as evidenced by his award.There should be an adjustment made for applicants in this situation.

His award will be in trust to shield it from means tested benefits that may be required in the future, which is why it is inacessible to the son.

So far we have nothing more then the OP's assumption for that.

I have the feeling that it has a lots to do with the income amount (that he actually has in his own name) and the fact he has no history.

It is the same as if you just asked me to lend you a fifty. I don't know you, I haven't got any references you are trustworthy and for your extra income I only have your word.

Guess what - I would have to be mad to lend you the money.