Disability Discrimination Act 2005

zppp

Theboysmum wrote: »

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.

I think you need to look at what you define as usual banking facilities. There are people in this country who are financially excluded and are unable to get a bank account. This is why the government are imposing an obligation on banks to offer basic banking services.

From what you have said, you are arguing that banks should provide credit as a basic facility, however this is flawed. Not everyone has credit or even wants it, thus it is not a requirement.

TFD_2

Firstly, I would lose the chip on your shoulder. It's not discrimination about his disability. It is a risk based decision based on him not being in employment. Going down that route is not going to help you!

Secondly, decide WHY he needs a credit card. Initially you said it was to build a credit history and purchase online. Then you say it's to spread the cost of purchases.

As stated elsewhere, credit is not a right, but a privilege. If a lender chooses to lend him money, then great, but they don't have to, if he doesn't fit the profile they feel comfortable in lending to.

You also say in one sentence about his income... then in another that the fund isn't allowed to pay an income as such. Regular reliable incomes are what lenders will look for.

Theboysmum

Why do most people have a credit card? To build a credit history, to make purchases online and to spread the cost of large purchases are the usual reasons.

As for unemployment v disability: unemployment can be changed, permanent disability cannot. To lump both categories together puts the disabled person at a much greater disadvantage than the unemployed person as they can never change their status and be seen as a 'mainstream' person; they are always on the periphery of society, regardless of their income and circumstances. If he was unemployed, he would be in receipt of unemployment benefits. As he is disabled, he is in receipt of disability benefits. The DSS make the distinction, with different rules for 'unemployed but seeking work' (JSA) and 'unemployed because of disability' (ICB) while automated credit scoring systems make no distinction between categories of unemployed. The suggestion from some appears to be that ithe unemployed ex-soldier maimed in Afghanistan should be treated in exactly the same way as the unemployed drug-taking ex-convict with the pivotal word being 'unemployed', rather than the circumstances of the unemployment.

hullight

As has been said numerous times, NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS WORLD has any right to money through credit. Not you, not me, not your maimed soldier example, not your son.

zppp

Theboysmum wrote: »

Why do most people have a credit card? To build a credit history, to make purchases online and to spread the cost of large purchases are the usual reasons.

Most people don't have a credit card. And we are not saying that they are not useful for certain purposes, because they are, but you can use a debit card to make a purchase online, build your credit history by running a bank account and gym membership etc.

The crux of your post is revolving credit facilities.

Theboysmum wrote: »

As for unemployment v disability: unemployment can be changed, permanent disability cannot. To lump both categories together puts the disabled person at a much greater disadvantage than the unemployed person as they can never change their status and be seen as a 'mainstream' person; they are always on the periphery of society, regardless of their income and circumstances. If he was unemployed, he would be in receipt of unemployment benefits. As he is disabled, he is in receipt of disability benefits. The DSS make the distinction, with different rules for 'unemployed but seeking work' (JSA) and 'unemployed because of disability' (ICB) while automated credit scoring systems make no distinction between categories of unemployed. The suggestion from some appears to be that ithe unemployed ex-soldier maimed in Afghanistan should be treated in exactly the same way as the unemployed drug-taking ex-convict with the pivotal word being 'unemployed', rather than the circumstances of the unemployment.

It is unfortunate however at present your son is unemployed. That is a material fact, and until your son becomes self-employed as aforementioned. I think you are looking too much into semantics here I'm afraid. I do empathise with your position, but I agree with the other posters this is not a breach of DDA.

poet123

TFD wrote: »

Firstly, I would lose the chip on your shoulder. It's not discrimination about his disability. It is a risk based decision based on him not being in employment. Going down that route is not going to help you!

Secondly, decide WHY he needs a credit card. Initially you said it was to build a credit history and purchase online. Then you say it's to spread the cost of purchases.

As stated elsewhere, credit is not a right, but a privilege. If a lender chooses to lend him money, then great, but they don't have to, if he doesn't fit the profile they feel comfortable in lending to.

You also say in one sentence about his income... then in another that the fund isn't allowed to pay an income as such. Regular reliable incomes are what lenders will look for.

I think that is a very unfair accusation, the OP is simply pursuing a very reasonable course of action imo. This is not just about a credit card, it is about future lending, mortgages, car loans etc, things most of us have.

If it can be proven that the income (from whatever reasonably secure source) is equal to that which would achieve a card for the next man, then imo it could reasonably be argued that because that source includes disability benefit it is discrimination to deny the card.

Take a similar scenario, and substitute Retirement benefits for IB and DLA, keep the same income and (it seems) not inconsiderable property assets, and do you think that person would achieve a card?

I am not saying that the payment of those benefits would/should always be equated to earned income, as in most/many cases recovery is expected. However, in a case where medical evidence and a compensation payment (which presumably included an amount for loss of future career) can show that the disability is lifelong, reasonable adjustments to the custom and practice of lending criteria should be made.

The security issue is no worse than your average wage earner who couldbe made redundant tomorrow, having achieved a card today. In many ways the benefit income (from what the OP states) is far more secure than that.

Theboysmum

Thank you Poet123, you are correct in all your assumptions. While my son's benefit income will always be subject to current government policy, the award was made on the basis of loss of future career due to permanent disability, the income from the investments made with the compensation are as safe as houses (pun intended), barring some future government decision to grab back all privately owned property, thus depriving him of the rent.

The issue is entirely about future lending and needs and getting his foot back onto the ladder he was knocked off seven years ago. If being unemployed is the preclusion, he will never be able to do so as he is likely to always remain unemployed, purely as a result of being disabled and the chance for him to become self-employed is likely to be severely hampered if he is unable to access usual financial services.

To treat him in the same way as a normal able-bodied person when litigation has proved him to be permanently disabled and an award made on the basis that he is unable to work is, in my opinion, discriminatory as it is recognised that he no longer has the same chance as everyone else or, indeed, as he had prior to the accident. To be denied access to goods, services and facilities because you are disabled contravenes the DDA.

zppp

Theboysmum wrote: »

Thank you Poet123, you are correct in all your assumptions. While my son's benefit income will always be subject to current government policy, the award was made on the basis of loss of future career due to permanent disability, the income from the investments made with the compensation are as safe as houses (pun intended), barring some future government decision to grab back all privately owned property, thus depriving him of the rent.

The issue is entirely about future lending and needs and getting his foot back onto the ladder he was knocked off seven years ago. If being unemployed is the preclusion, he will never be able to do so as he is likely to always remain unemployed, purely as a result of being disabled and the chance for him to become self-employed is likely to be severely hampered if he is unable to access usual financial services.

To treat him in the same way as a normal able-bodied person when litigation has proved him to be permanently disabled and an award made on the basis that he is unable to work is, in my opinion, discriminatory as it is recognised that he no longer has the same chance as everyone else or, indeed, as he had prior to the accident. To be denied access to goods, services and facilities because you are disabled contravenes the DDA.

But to use the DDA, you have to prove that the financial institution is no treating him in the same way as other 'able-bodied people'. They are treating him the same. Therefore there is no contravention.

CLAPTON

Theboysmum wrote: »

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.

I'm still a little confused about his income and assets;
does he have access (via the trustees) to the assets or income from the trust or both

because, why he can't use this to fund his needs

so if you wanted to buy a big ticket item then it would seem he has several choices

-the trust come fund it directly as you and he are trustees
-he could save up for it
-potentialy he could borrow and pay an extra 20% in interest

why would he want to do the last of the three alternatives ?

Theboysmum

Does he have access (via the trustees) to the assets or income from the trust or both - yes.

The issue is not whether or not he has enough money to buy big ticket items or whether someone else could fund it for him upfront, it is about him being seen as a financially independent person in his own right. Able-bodied people' who are unemployed can change that status. They are treating him as if he can do the same. He cannot because he is not able-bodied, he is unemployed without the option of changing his status, therefore, I believe there is a contravention.

As for not wanting to pay interest on loans - does anyone? Did you save up to buy your house/car outright or did you take credit in any form? I doubt you wanted to pay the interest but accepted it as functioning in modern society. If you had not been granted the credit facilities, you may not have the house/car at all.