Disability Discrimination Act 2005

Bosie

Hi Theboysmum my hubby applied some time ago for a new bank account and on the Abbey, Alliance & Leicester application for a current account, when it came to the question of 'what is your occupation' you could actually tick the disabled box and also a carer box to tick;)

He actually applied for the Abbey (Santander) and was approved, I've just had a peek on the Alliance & Leicester application form and they are still asking that question.

Bo x

Bosie

OOOps sorry was thinking it was for a current account, but a lot of banks pre-approve credit cards on well run bank accounts, best wishes anyway. I have a friend in similar circumstances .

savagej

I have not put my agruement very well and when feeling better I will come back and try to correct it and be more polite.

But just to add, the definition from the dictionary for retired is:

"no longer active in your work or profession"

So I cannot see any reason not to use it when you have an award of DLA that cannot change unless there is some kind of medical miracle.

Also I think this is more an arguement about credit risk than the semantics of definitions and that the DDA could come in there is a section about not being treated differently and banking is stated.

poet123

I won't go into the rights and wrongs of a 19 year old having access to a CC, I discouraged any of mine from doing so, but that is for his parents and himself to decide upon.

However, I can see that the OP believes it is desirable from the POV of building a credit history. That may be true, but at 19 he will be very far from alone by not having such a history, my sons were at University at that age and did not have anything other than a bank account with a limited O/D facility (in fact that is still the case at 22 and 26, as they can see the perils of a credit card). If it is just the credit history building that is at issue, then mobile phones, gym membership, catalogues can all add to that score.

However, obviously long term it may be about buying on credit, or spreading the cost of items, or funding a business if he decides to become self employed. So, my advice would be to get all the above forms of credit, a letter from his doctor stating his incapacity is lifelong and unlikely to improve, allthe financial details relating to his trust fund, rental income, and his DLA award notices. Take them and go and see his bank manager in person, often they have more leeway than via the net or postal applications. Even a small cc limit would be a start.

I do think though that if you can show the disability is lifelong, and provide medical evidence of that, then the source of the income should be immaterial if that income equates to a level at which an employed person would achieve a card. That level would obviously be worth doing some research on. No one has a guaranteed job, in fact a benefit income of this nature is probably more guaranteed than many peoples earned income currently is.

So, looked at from that angle the DDA may well come into play, even if it ultimately does not, if you are determined to push the case, even mentioning that it is an avenue you are considering exploring may elicit a more favourable result, if you get my drift.;)

savagej

Thanks poet you have said a lot of what I was trying to say.

chattychappy

wrangler5 wrote: »

I think the main problem here is that you are looking at credit as a God given right, rather than as a privilage. Why can't you make him a second card holder on your own account or get a prepaid Credit Card?

I hardly see having a credit card as a "privilege". The OP's point is whether the decision making process has infringed "statute given rights" (rather than God given ones).

Maybe she could make a second card holder or get a prepaid credit card, but I don't think that's the point.

chattychappy

The OP might like to consider the FSA's treating customer's fairly initiative (google "FSA TCF") and take a browse through. Though wishy-washy sounding, it is part of the "principles based" regulation system that binds banks.

chattychappy

wrangler5 wrote: »

And i hardly see having a credit card as a "right".

Good.......!

hullight

Theboysmum wrote: »

A debit card is adequate only to the value of the money in the current account at the time the debit card is used. On a small income which covers not much more than car insurance, petrol and gym fees, that precludes any purchase above about £50. As the credit card ads say - use a credit card to spread the cost of those bigger items. In a world which revolves around credit the 'need' for a credit card seems fairly obvious.

Thank you to those who have given advice on enhancing his chances, useful suggestions.

That's a low income and they declined credit.

If they give credit because he has a disability it could be seen as positive discrimination, affirmative action, whatever you want to call it.

Don't people want equal rights?

Theboysmum

Thank you all for your comments. Just to clarify: my son is now nearly 27. He was permanently disabled at the age of 19 and had no income other than benefits until last year. He now has a private income following an out of court award which recognised the permanent nature of the disability. Part of the award was designated for future serious medical requirements - there is agreement that his condition will worsen rather than improve. Poet123 states exactly my point - the source of income should be immaterial if the income equates to a level at which an employed person would achieve a card and this is the reason that he has not previously applied. 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.

Given that it is accepted that he is permanently disabled and extremely unlikely to find work, it seems very unfair that he is destined always to have to state that he is unemployed and thus be precluded from mainstream banking facilities which - unlike some respondents - I believe are a right if you are financially viable and have no adverse credit history. The limit on the card is irrelevant, it is merely to establish a good credit history with the view to utilising his investment income to generate more income. Putting him as a second card holder does not build a credit history in his own name, which is the main point of the exercise. While he is still living at home, there is no problem in us purchasing items for him but there will come a time when it becomes unreasonable for a grown man to have his parents purchasing items on his behalf.

Without credit facilities, he is limited to having only what he can immediately afford or enlisting the assistance of someone with credit facilities. I doubt that many people would have a house, car, holidays or the usual electrical appliances found in most homes unless they had been able to avail themselves of credit in some form at some point and, without a good credit history, this would not have been possible.

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.

He is unemployed only because he is disabled. He receives no unemployment benefits; he receives Incapacity Benefit - which is paid because you are either considered unfit to work or you are not expected to work - and DLA, which is paid only to those persons stated by the DWP as being disabled. He has a poor prognosis with the expectation of further serious surgery and is unlikely ever to be employed again, although he aspires to being self-employed as soon as he can get a foot on the financial ladder. While he remains disabled that seems unlikely if he is unable to access the usual banking facilities; therefore, the discrimination is because he is disabled, rather than because he is unemployed. It is for these reasons that I believe that the DDA should be considered.