Disability Discrimination Act 2005

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

After he had been declined and the full disclosure was made, a re assessment taking the full info into account should have been made. It wasn't.

The failure is to do that and be seen to do that, not the outcome.

According to the OP it was, but he was still declined, but invited to apply again in six months. Which suggests that it is his credit score that is the problem. But then again, one never knows what to believe with all the conflicting information.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

Yet it wasn't when the source of his income was explained.

Because it can't be classed as income, as the OP clearly states. Do you need to have a lie down? You've confused yourself and have a silly grin on your face.:(

poet123

LilacPixie wrote: »

Chappy - I personally would consider an area of an application for asking or insisting that I disclose my disability status or lack of to be intrusive, unnessesary and having no baring what so ever on my risk profile to a lender.

In the OP case individual consideration was given and his application was still rejected.

No, if you read the OP the application went through again under the automatic electronic system, not a person vetted one.

It is of course your right not to have a disability taken account of, just as it is the OP's sons right to do so if he wishes.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

Yet it wasn't when the source of his income was explained.

If you appeal, you send in supporting documents and the underwriter looks at the additional information, and looks at the application. IMO the wrong occupation was put down on the application.

There could be an issue with the credit reference agencies, as Call Credit hold data on how much people earn monthly. Has the OP checked this, because if it is not registered this could affect an application.

LilacPixie

Theboysmum wrote: »

However, in a personal capacity, he remains disabled and in receipt of disability benefit and, therefore, when applying for a credit card must tick the 'unemployed' box and enter a very small personal income. He has applied for three credit cards and has been refused for each. He has searched his Experian file which showed exactly as expected - no credit history other than a couple of enquiries for car insurance, which was granted without a problem. His credit score is 840 which Experian state falls into the 'fair' category. He is on the electoral roll and we have lived at this address for 25 years. There is no adverse credit history attached to the address or anyone else who lives here.

He has written to each of the card issuers explaining his circumstances, offering to substantiate all the details and asking for advice and assistance; the response has been that a further credit search reveals no change in his circumstances and he remains declined. The advice is to re-apply in six months. .

The OP first post. I have highlighted what I feel to be an important point. The OP son wrote to them with full info, they reassesed and still declined as a credit search showed no change in circumstance. This implies the lack of credit history is the main culprit. The OP was giving ideas on how to improve credit history but is still following a discrimination route.

poet123

Fang wrote: »

Because it can't be classed as income, as the OP clearly states. Do you need to have a lie down? You've confused yourself and have a silly grin on your face.:(

The pertinent point is that if the bank did not lump all those who do not receive an income from employment or unemployment together but took account of circumstance ( as per the DDA) then the benefit could be deemed income.

Obviously you all know better than anyone who is legally trained, so we will have to wait for the OP to tell us the outcome.:D

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

The pertinent point is that if the bank did not lump all those who do not receive an income from employment or unemployment together but took account of circumstance ( as per the DDA) then the benefit could be deemed income.

Obviously you all know better than anyone who is legally trained, so we will have to wait for the OP to tell us the outcome.:D

Yes. I await, with breath that is baited.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

Obviously you all know better than anyone who is legally trained, so we will have to wait for the OP to tell us the outcome.:D

Well I'm pleased that's cleared up then. Shame this didn't happen 120 posts ago.

poet123

zppp wrote: »

Well I'm pleased that's cleared up then. Shame this didn't happen 120 posts ago.

Yes, you wouldnt need to have bothered responding then would you?

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, you wouldnt need to have bothered responding then would you?

Just checking that you would wanted to have the final word as I mentioned before.