Disability Discrimination Act 2005

Any

Fang wrote: »

Why would he need one then? He apparently has more money than them? Questions have been posed and answers not given.

From what I understand, he "theoreticaly" has more money then them.

That is the point here I think Poet and OP misses here - when you shield them, you shield them. You cannot bring them up only when you need them. If that was possible, we would all be hiding all our money away to protect them from being taxed or what ever and bring them up only when we want to. Ask the "baddies" to close their eyes when we show them to the "good ones" and then hide them away.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

And if you had a legal avenue to pursue to shield an inheritance you would not take it?

An inheritance is a different thing entirely. The inheritance will have been earned and already had tax paid.

The OP's son is essentially having the taxpayer fund his lifestyle and treatment despite having compensation that was designed to do that. And then complaining because the banks are not giving him more money. It's incredulous!

Fang_3

Any wrote: »

From what I understand, he "theoreticaly" has more money then them.

That is the point here I think Poet and OP misses here - when you shield them, you shield them. You cannot bring them up only when you need them. If that was possible, we would all be hiding all our money away to protect them from being taxed or what ever and bring them up only when we want to. Ask the "baddies" to close their eyes when we show them to the "good ones" and then hide them away.

Well exactly. It does seem that they want one rule for themselves and another for everyone else. Disgraceful.

poet123

Fang wrote: »

Oh really? Where? Perhaps you could point us all to where the OP has answered the various questions posed in regards to why her son actually needs a credit card? She doesn't seem to be able to pick a reason without changing her mind and then not answering why she has changed her mind. Not that I'm accusing her of lying of course.:eek: Perish the thought!

I dont propose to trawl her posts, but the reason(s) are there, the fact that they are various does not mean any, or all, are spurious. She put forward several issues (presumably as they occurred)that impact on the refusal of a CC, but obviously they do not satisfy you.

That fact alone does not make them invalid.:D

Any

poet123 wrote: »

You can actually, if they are in breach ofthe DDA, which the OP is at liberty to determine.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Are you suggesting that because they don't let him use his "hidden" money they are discriminating against him?

The system has been specificaly designed (with some flaws) so you can't cheat it. There are still some flaws and that is why things like trusts can help you to avoid the tax liability or what ever, but locking it in there also causes you trouble on other fronts.

LilacPixie

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.

I disagree with the adjustment being made or needed. If the OP's some received DLA (award for life indicates this) the benefit is not means tested. This is payable to those who qualify regardless of employment status. IMO the payment of DLA should be disregarded to level the playing field with a person of similar age and similar history minus disability.

In this case we have 2 adults not working. one getting JSA and the other incapacity benefit ( means tested assuming this is the reason for the trust).

If a poster cam on here and said I get JSA but my bank won't give me a credit card because they class me as unemployed but i hope to work in the future and I sort of get money every now and then thats legal but i can't really class it as an income people would be telling him/her to get a grip. You have no regular income, no imediate prospect of income no assets and no credit history. Best bet is who you bank with, if they say no the accept and try build a history using the higher APR cards paying in full each month.

I get very annoyed when people scream discrimination because a decision goes against them. Lenders operate an across the board policy they do not question disability on the application for this reason.

Many people fought and still fight to be treated the same as an able bodied person, that includes negetive and positive discrimination. From what I have read and understood the OP seems to feel that her son should get special treatment over and above a level playing field. That makes me annoyed.

poet123

Fang wrote: »

An inheritance is a different thing entirely. The inheritance will have been earned and already had tax paid.

The OP's son is essentially having the taxpayer fund his lifestyle and treatment despite having compensation that was designed to do that. And then complaining because the banks are not giving him more money. It's incredulous!

Are you aware that in most cases where there is an award made it has the amount of benefits paid in respect of that claim deducted at source?

poet123

Any wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Are you suggesting that because they don't let him use his "hidden" money they are discriminating against him?

The system has been specificaly designed (with some flaws) so you can't cheat it. There are still some flaws and that is why things like trusts can help you to avoid the tax liability or what ever, but locking it in there also causes you trouble on other fronts.

It is not his "hidden" money which is at issue, it is the weekly benefit payments and the payments from the trust, not the capital sum.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

Are you aware that in most cases where there is an award made it has the amount of benefits paid in respect of that claim deducted at source?

I am aware of that, but the remainder is then shielded, causing the taxpayer to pay for something that has already been paid for by the guilty party. It shouldn't happen.

poet123

LilacPixie wrote: »

I disagree with the adjustment being made or needed. If the OP's some received DLA (award for life indicates this) the benefit is not means tested. This is payable to those who qualify regardless of employment status. IMO the payment of DLA should be disregarded to level the playing field with a person of similar age and similar history minus disability.

In this case we have 2 adults not working. one getting JSA and the other incapacity benefit ( means tested assuming this is the reason for the trust).

If a poster cam on here and said I get JSA but my bank won't give me a credit card because they class me as unemployed but i hope to work in the future and I sort of get money every now and then thats legal but i can't really class it as an income people would be telling him/her to get a grip. You have no regular income, no imediate prospect of income no assets and no credit history. Best bet is who you bank with, if they say no the accept and try build a history using the higher APR cards paying in full each month.

I get very annoyed when people scream discrimination because a decision goes against them. Lenders operate an across the board policy they do not question disability on the application for this reason.

Many people fought and still fight to be treated the same as an able bodied person, that includes negetive and positive discrimination. From what I have read and understood the OP seems to feel that her son should get special treatment over and above a level playing field. That makes me annoyed.

You are not accurately representing the situation.