Disability Discrimination Act 2005

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

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.

For an established member, I'm surprised you're posting so much bad information.

Gym memberships do not help a credit score. It will be a DD for a monthly fee.

CRA Credit scores do not take into account employment status / income / etc. They purely factor in payment information, court info and electoral role. The REAL credit scores take far more info into account.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

:T I see you have retired, and yet continue to trot the troll accusation out.

Medically :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Maybe I should put that on my credit card application rather than unemployed. :rotfl:

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

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.

Why do you keep bringing your son into this as if it has any bearing? Your son, a graduate, will have got the credit card through his bank, and they are at liberty to give a credit card to whomever they choose, and likewise, not to give one. Bless you not being able to understand this. It can't be easy.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

The son owns property bought by the trust fund and receives rental income, in addition to benefits and payments from the fund.

Enough to buy a packet of haribo by the sounds of things, if he can only afford very small purchases from his current account. His trust fund is managed in a very strange way.

LilacPixie

One further point. Any assets purchased or investments made belong to the trust not to the benificiary of the trust so if a lender issues the OP son with a card with a limit of say 5k om the strengh of hundreds of thousands of assets held in trust and he then defaulted the lender could not touch the assets only bankrupt a person on benefits and get nothing.

Any

Theboysmum wrote: »

The trust fund is not paying him an income per se (not allowed under trust rules) but the assets and income generated therefrom can be used for his benefit with the agreement of the trustees (myself and my son). The trust fund is treated as an entirely separate legal entity and has to file tax returns on the basis of a taxpayer at that rate of income.

To the Poet - this is very vital information.
There is no income - per se.
He cannot get his money out UNLESS someone else agrees and all the assets are treated as a separate entity.

IE - THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE BANKS WHEN ASSESING A PRIVATE PERSON.

I would also like to point out that some trust funds ARE able to pay regular income, but this one was evidently set up like this on the purpose.

chattychappy

poet123 has articulated the issues very well and I think we don't have the facts to determine whether this is discrimination or not, IMHO.

But some areas are certainly irrelevant:

1) whether the OP's son needs a credit card or can make purchases another way. This may be a practical workaround, but it's not what the OP was asking. I could cope without credit cards - so what?

2) credit cards are a right/privilege debate. The only rights I can see here are the freedom to contract by both parties as constrained by rights not to be discriminated against on the ground of disability

3) whether the OP's son is actually a good risk or not.

The facts we don't have is whether the processes applied by the banks are discriminatory or not - it seems the banks have been opaque. Failure to have clear procedures which prevent discrimination can be sufficient to facilitate discimination and incur liability. Legal advice really is needed - but I'd be surprised if one of the disabled charities hasn't already looked into this.

Another thing - posters have talked about the OP's son being treated the same as everybody else - ie the same as any other "unemployed" person. I'm with poet123 on this point.

But the issue is that indirect discrimination is also illegal and service providers are even meant to make proactive efforts to accommodate - this isn't just wheelchair ramps to shops, but also in processes and policy. This doesn't mean they must bias a decision, but must ensure that the disability isn't an unnecessary barrier. The result is that the effect of a process or policy can be discriminatory even if that is not the intention. Of course there are obvious legitimate exceptions. A simplistic example is you cannot of have a policy of not employing pregnant staff. This is sex discrimination. Even though the target is "pregnant people" rather than "females". Because only females become pregnant, it is sex discrimination. To have such a rule, therefore, a genuine reason must be found - perhaps because the work is a temporary post involving working with x-rays.

So in the OPs case, I suspect there is an argument to be had if form layout or following a dogmatic procedure prevents disabled people such as her son getting credit without due consideration. This could be satisfactorily overcome by the bank using properly designed forms or giving individual consideration.

Based on the facts from the OP, I suspect her son has been discriminated against because of a failure to pro-actively attempt to accommodate disabled people such as her son in its processes. There seems to be a "lumping" together with people of a different risk profile. But had they taken more care, it is still possible they would refuse credit, and then it would be legitimate.

[NB there was a squabble about legal qualifications earlier. For the record I'm a lawyer but this is outside of my area of practice. I had a quick chat with another solicitor before writing this post. What I write mustn't be taken as professional advice.]

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

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"

It would appear that the trust owns those and the OP's son merely benefits. The trust receives the the rental income, NOT the OP's son.

poet123

zppp wrote: »

Medically :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Maybe I should put that on my credit card application rather than unemployed. :rotfl:

Maybe you should, if you are unemployed.

Fang_3

chattychappy wrote: »

poet123 has articulated the issues very well and I think we don't have the facts to determine whether this is discrimination or not, IMHO.

But some areas are certainly irrelevant:

1) whether the OP's son needs a credit card or can make purchases another way. This may be a practical workaround, but it's not what the OP was asking. I could cope without credit cards - so what?

2) credit cards are a right/privilege debate. The only rights I can see here are the freedom to contract by both parties as constrained by rights not to be discriminated against on the ground of disability.

The facts we don't have is whether the processes applied by the banks are discriminatory or not - it seems the banks have been opaque. Failure to have clear procedures which prevent discrimination can be sufficient to facilitate discimination and incur liability. Legal advice really is needed - but I'd be surprised if one of the disabled charities hasn't already looked into this.

Another thing - posters have talked about the OP's son being treated the same as everybody else - ie the same as any other "unemployed" person. I'm with poet123 on this point.

But the issue is that indirect discrimination is also illegal and service providers are even meant to make proactive efforts to accommodate - this isn't just wheelchair ramps to shops, but also in processes and policy. The result is that the effect of a process or policy can be discriminatory even if that is not the intention. Of course there are obvious legitimate exceptions. A simplistic example is you cannot of have a policy of not employing pregnant staff. This is sex discrimination. Even though the target is "pregnant people" rather than "females". Because only females become pregnant, it is sex discrimination. To have such a rule, therefore, a genuine reason must be found - perhaps because the work is a temporary post involving working with x-rays.

So in the OPs case, I suspect there is an argument to be had if form layout or following a dogmatic procedure prevents disabled people such as her son getting credit without due consideration. This could be satisfactorily overcome by the bank using properly designed forms or giving individual consideration.

Based on the facts from the OP, I suspect her son has been discriminated against because of a failure to pro-actively attempt to accommodate disabled people such as her son in its processes. There seems to be a "lumping" together with people of a different risk profile. But had they taken more care, it is still possible they would refuse credit, and then it would be legitimate.

[NB there was a squabble about legal qualifications earlier. For the record I'm a lawyer but this is outside of my area of practice. I had a quick chat with another solicitor before writing this post. What I write mustn't be taken as professional advice.]

How would the bank be able to be pro-active when the applicant did not disclose his disability until he had been declined?

Also the reason why the credit card is 'needed' is important, because the OP has stated several different reasons and been given alternatives to all of them, however it's become apparent that the OP wants her son to have a credit card for having a credit card's sake, and no other reason.