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
-
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.
According to the OP he doesn't have any income from the trust, officially. And it is because they are not treating this money as income that she is bleating. You can't have it both ways. Such a shame.0 -
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.
Bottom line is, if the money was in regular saving account or yield bonds with regular income it wouldn't be a problem. But the way it was set up means that we do have a problem. Products like these give you some benefits, but they also have some shortfalls. And this is one of them.
No regular income (or not enough of it) = no credit.
As an afterthought-I think it might be the time to contact the financial advisors again. Not lawyers about discrimination, but financial advisors and lawyers who recommended the trust fund in the first place. Either they will explain the shortfalls of such an arrangements and point out the benefits you get instead and give you a choice or re-arrange the product in a ways to improve on this situation. IE - give regular income from the trust. Most likely there will be some benefits of the product to be lost, but it might solve the issue.0 -
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.
It is entirely legal, and as such any Layer would be remiss in not advising his client to take advantage of the situation.
You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong. Nor, I suspect does it mean that if you ever found yourself, or a member of your family in a similar position you would do anything other than what your lawyer suggested.0 -
You are not accurately representing the situation.
From what I have read and understood that is an accurate representation of the situation. Are you somehow involved in the 'situation' and can clarify what you feel I have misunderstood?MF aim 10th December 2020 :j:eek:MFW 2012 no86 OP 0/2000
0 -
It is entirely legal, and as such any Layer would be remiss in not advising his client to take advantage of the situation.
You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong. Nor, I suspect does it mean that if you ever found yourself, or a member of your family in a similar position you would do anything other than what your lawyer suggested.
MPs expenses were all entirely legal and within the rules. That didn't make them any less wrong.
I don't blindly listen to lawyers, so I would do what I think is moral. You may choose not to believe that but I believe in personal responsibility and not cheating people.0 -
Bottom line is, if the money was in regular saving account or yield bonds with regular income it wouldn't be a problem. But the way it was set up means that we do have a problem. Products like these give you some benefits, but they also have some shortfalls. And this is one of them.
No regular income (or not enough of it) = no credit.
His regular benefit income, and his fund payments total more than his mother earns, yet she got a card, he did not. Purely because of his employment designation, not due to amount of income.
The capital sum is not at issue, nor in the equation.0 -
LilacPixie wrote: »From what I have read and understood that is an accurate representation of the situation. Are you somehow involved in the 'situation' and can clarify what you feel I have misunderstood?
No, certainly not involved, other than an interested poster. My last post is a summary of the situation.:D0 -
His regular benefit income, and his fund payments total more than his mother earns, yet she got a card, he did not. Purely becasue of his employment designation, not due to amount of income.
The capital sum is not at issue, nor in the equation.
Could you post the relevant post where the OP made this clear please?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
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards