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
-
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.
NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE AT ALL.
Sorry, where do you get this stuff from?
His mum is going to be older, working (we assume) and has credit history. So you cannot say it was purely down to the employment designation.0 -
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.
The regular income is not enough and/or he hasn't got any credit history.
It is the regular income that matters. The one off payments cannot be taken into consideration as they are not regular and can be stopped.0 -
The regular income is not enough and/or he hasn't got any credit history.
It is the regular income that matters. The one off payments cannot be taken into consideration as they are not regular and can be stopped.
Hence me suggesting to the OP that they get the trust fund to pay a regular income, but this suggestion was ignored as you'd expect.0 -
NOT TRUE. NOT TRUE AT ALL.
Sorry, where do you get this stuff from?
His mum is going to be older, working (we assume) and has credit history. So you cannot say it was purely down to the employment designation.
I knooooow... This is beginning to feel like talking to a brick wall, doesn't it?
They are completely set on discrimination, what ever anyone says. I don't think there is anything more we can do.
I myself would explore the other avenues suggested however, as the questioning at the court will be in depth and they need to have a proof of discrimination (ie not comparing apple and pears for example). For that reason only I would make sure that it cannot be any of the other things that fully able people cannot get credit for either - such as credit history.0 -
Hence me suggesting to the OP that they get the trust fund to pay a regular income, but this suggestion was ignored as you'd expect.
Well we have gone from the OP's son needing a credit card to buy things off the internet, despite him having a debit card, to him needing it to improve his credit rating (for what remains unclear given that it seems that already owns several homes), to it being to spread the cost of more expensive items as he is incapable of saving, though the trust would pay for them within a few weeks anyway. It's all very peculiar.0 -
Theboysmum wrote: »I proved that point in that my income from paid employment is about half that of my son's income from his investments and yet I was granted a card last month with an immediate limit of £1,800. My son has considerably more assets than my husband and myself.
, I have written to those card providers which declined his initial application setting out in full the details of his financial position with supporting documents and an offer to answer any further questions but the reply merely stated that on a further check with the credit reference agencies, his application was still declined and the suggestion was that he should re-apply in six months. He has gym membership and a small overdraft on his current account - no problem with either. In six months, his financial situation will remain exactly the same, his medical condition may be worse.
.Could you post the relevant post where the OP made this clear please?
See above, which clearly states that income from investments alone, without benefits is higher than the OP's, and the OP also mentions the gym membership/ current account/OD facility which the son has, which should according to all accepted measures give a reasonable credit score, at 840 (from memory)
My son had none of those ancillary products in his name,and had no income yet got a card without applying, on the strength (presumably) of a student account well managed.0 -
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.
First point I would make is amount of income is not be all and end all. If the op sone gets IB (means tested hence need for trust fund) and DLA at Higher rate for both components then his income is about £210 a week so just under 11k a year, not alot We do not know the OP credit status, does she have a credit history? We know the son does not? Does the OP own her own home?? any other assets. We know her son does not. She may earn less than £210 per week but card applications ask for other household/partner income possibly the op has a partner with a 50k income, possibly the op also claims carers allowance for her son.
Drawing the conclusion that the OP son was obviously declined a card because of his disability which is evident because his mum earns less than his benefits and still got one while ignoring the possibility that she had a credit history or even a tangible asset that the lender could use to secure repayment incase of default could of made her appear a better risk to the lender.MF aim 10th December 2020 :j:eek:MFW 2012 no86 OP 0/2000
0 -
I knooooow... This is beginning to feel like talking to a brick wall, doesn't it?
They are completely set on discrimination, what ever anyone says. I don't think there is anything more we can do.
I myself would explore the other avenues suggested however, as the questioning at the court will be in depth and they need to have a proof of discrimination (ie not comparing apple and pears for example). For that reason only I would make sure that it cannot be any of the other things than fully able people cannot get credit either - such as credit history.
Do we still have a troll on the loose? God I can't believe this has reached 200 posts!
Best Regards
zppp
0 -
LilacPixie wrote: »First point I would make is amount of income is not be all and end all. If the op sone gets IB (means tested hence need for trust fund) and DLA at Higher rate for both components then his income is about £210 a week so just under 11k a year, not alot We do not know the OP credit status, does she have a credit history? We know the son does not? Does the OP own her own home?? any other assets. We know her son does not. She may earn less than £210 per week but card applications ask for other household/partner income possibly the op has a partner with a 50k income, possibly the op also claims carers allowance for her son.
Drawing the conclusion that the OP son was obviously declined a card because of his disability which is evident because his mum earns less than his benefits and still got one while ignoring the possibility that she had a credit history or even a tangible asset that the lender could use to secure repayment incase of default could of made her appear a better risk to the lender.
The son owns property bought by the trust fund and receives rental income, in addition to benefits and payments from the fund. He has, according to the OP "considerably more assets than either her or her husband"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