Disability Discrimination Act 2005

poet123

zppp wrote: »

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

And you don't? I am off to bed now....go on get the last word in, you know you want to. Knock yourself out!

chattychappy

Fang wrote: »

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

Disclosure might not be necessary - we're not talking about skewing or biasing in favour of disabled people. Just removing barriers or redesigning processes to ensure indirect discrimination occur. It doesn't mean singling out individual disabled people for special treatment because of a disability - though inevitability sometimes it may come to that.

Fang wrote: »

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.

Fine - no problems with having a credit card for credit card's sake. I really don't think we need to know or care why the OP's son wants one.

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.

I agree it probably is unnecessary - though perhaps some types of disability award might be more "long term" and "guaranteed" than others - in which case disclosing which kind might be relevant to a risk analysis. Just as what kind of job you have (though I don't think I've been asked that recently).

LilacPixie wrote: »

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

Provided it was properly considered, then no problems with that. I got the impression that this may have been a sham.

chattychappy

jimmo wrote: »

It just seems to me that the OP and son are allowing the lawyers control everything.

Hee hee hee... naughty 'ole lawyers again. Certainly you can't have your cake and eat it. If money is tied up in the trust then it can't be used as income.

But in this case, I think the OP said that income out of the trust is available to her son subject to his and the OP's signature. If they do pay out income on a regular basis then I see no problem using it as the declared income. Afterall, a normal employed person's income is subject to someone authorising a BACS or signing a cheque.

woody01

I am sorry for what happened to your son, but i think you are blinkered as to why he cannot get credit.
Regardless of assets, he is unemployed, and therefore has no guaranteed income.

kunekune

If he is an adult, there is no reason why the money HAS to be tied up in a trust, and as he is the sole beneficiary, he can bring the trust to an end if he wants. Indeed, it is not possible to have a perpetual trust, so there must be some provision for the trust to end at some point. However, he can't have it both ways. He is either the legal owner of the assets (no trust but plenty of assets and income) or the beneficiary of the trust. The latter may well have tax advantages, but he needs to weigh this against the lack of control of his own money.

poet123

poet123 wrote: »

And you don't? I am off to bed now....go on get the last word in, you know you want to. Knock yourself out!

Thank you for having the last word by PM to me at 11.59 (I knew you couldn't resist):D

RobertoMoir

chattychappy wrote: »

I hardly see having a credit card as a "privilege".

Well it certainly isn't a right. We don't have a right to credit, nor should we have. It's a courtesy that businesses can choose to extend to customers should they wish.

I'd agree that they should not apply this "courtesy" in a discriminatory manner, but I'm not sure that they have. If they're making decisions based on affordability/risk then that seems perfectly valid to me.

If they were making decisions based on stereotypes of disability, race, religion, gender then I'd back any complaint on those grounds 100%. But they're not.

chattychappy wrote: »

The OP's point is whether the decision making process has infringed "statute given rights" (rather than God given ones).

I don't see how they could possibly have done so. This isn't a disability access issue - if the person concerned was also a millionaire with a decent income from business ownership, for example, then I'm sure they'd be get credit. If the decision to give credit is based on affordability then this is fine imho.

poet123

kunekune wrote: »

If he is an adult, there is no reason why the money HAS to be tied up in a trust, and as he is the sole beneficiary, he can bring the trust to an end if he wants. Indeed, it is not possible to have a perpetual trust, so there must be some provision for the trust to end at some point. However, he can't have it both ways. He is either the legal owner of the assets (no trust but plenty of assets and income) or the beneficiary of the trust. The latter may well have tax advantages, but he needs to weigh this against the lack of control of his own money.

There will be reasons, they are probably very complex legal reasons which the lay person may not appreciate the nuances of.

Chattychap has addressed and aswered all the pertinent points, and it seems we are in agreement that the OP should seek advice to see if the case for breach of the DDA/discrimination could be made.

It is not for any of us to judge the OP or her reasons, they are largely irrelevant, if the banks are acting in a discriminatory manner they need to be shown the error of their ways.

Quite why some people feel the need to introduce personal comment in their answers to a genuine plea for advice I am not sure....although I could speculate.

I suspect the OP has had enough of being cross examined, until she has to go through it for real and engage with those who have some legal expertise in this area rather than keyboard warriors who are not in possession of all the facts, or who manipulate or disregard the the ones they have been given. That point was not aimed at the quoted poster.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

Quite why some people feel the need to introduce personal comment in their answers to a genuine plea for advice I am not sure....although I could speculate.

I suspect the OP has had enough of being cross examined, until she has to go through it for real and engage with those who have some legal expertise in this area rather than keyboard warriors who are not in possession of all the facts, or who manipulate or disregard the the ones they have been given. That point was not aimed at the quoted poster.

I am sure it was directed (at least partly) at me.

The OP's attitude was bad. She posted conflicting contradictory information, and altered her stance depending on what suited the particular post.

This is a public forum - people are allowed to cross examine for more information in order to comment objectively.

The sense of entitlement to credit is what annoyed me, and I stand by comments re the chip on her shoulder. I may not have been over sympathetic to her situation, but since when is that a requirement when posting on here? I do genuinely sympathise with the difficulties her and her son face due to his extremely unfortunate situation - but by that I am referring to his disability, not his lack of credit!!

poet123

Without wishing to labour the point, I think you would only consider the OP's atttitude bad, or her story contradictory if you wished to view it that way for reasons of your own. I certainly didnt see it as anything other than a mother concerned that an avenue should be available to her son that is not currently open to him for reasons she considers unfair and discriminatory. She is fully entitled to explore that POV, both legally and morally.

I do not see why you have such an issue with it, at the end of the day a decision will be reached and if she suceeds she will have ensured fair play and the end to a discriminatory practice. If she fails, she wil have tried, explored the issue, and had the case found wanting.