Disability Discrimination Act 2005

poet123

zppp wrote: »

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.

Are they though?

Person x has an income from a part time job of xyz plus assets.

Person b has an income from benefits (long term and proven incapacity) of the same amount. and equal assets

If person a gets a card and person b does not, the differentiator is source. Therefore, if person b has no liklihood of ever working due to disability then they are not being treated equally.

It is not the amount of income/assets the lending criteria is being used on, but the source of that income, and the ususal (not unreasonable) perception that, being a benefit, it may be transitory.

My point is that if it can be shown to be a long term issue, which it is not medically posible to recover from, then the income from benefits should be taken into account as any other form of income is. The Op's son is probably part of a small band who fall into the category, nevertheless if they exist, provision should be made for them.

The Op states she has proven that it is source not amount that is at issue as she personally achieved a card on a lesser (though earned) income than her son is currently in receipt of.

zppp

Theboysmum wrote: »

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.

But you have said before he is looking to become self employed. Therefore he can change his status.

Theboysmum wrote: »

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.

I repeat again, some people are financially excluded and don't even have a bank account, let alone credit and still get on with their lives. A large number of people do have to save up to get material things, that is not a new concept, and applies to people who are and aren't disabled.

poet123

zppp wrote: »

But you have said before he is looking to become self employed. Therefore he can change his status.



I repeat again, some people are financially excluded and don't even have a bank account, let alone credit and still get on with their lives. A large number of people do have to save up to get material things, that is not a new concept, and applies to people who are and aren't disabled.

With respect that is not the issue. If he is being disadvantaged solely because of his disability and issues which stem from that, then he is being discriminated against.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

With respect that is not the issue. If he is being disadvantaged solely because of his disability and issues which stem from that, then he is being discriminated against.

So if the OP's son has a regular income, why isn't the retired option being used as opposed to unemployed? That recognises that they have an income.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

With respect that is not the issue. If he is being disadvantaged solely because of his disability and issues which stem from that, then he is being discriminated against.

Well that's not the case. He's not being disadvantaged. Lenders just don't want to lend to unemployed people, irrespective of their bank balance and ability. When they decline him, they don't know he's disabled, so can hardly be blamed on discriminating against him on that basis!!!!!

If a debit card will only cover purchases of £50, then it sounds like better financial management is required, rather than unsecured lending.

opinions4u

TFD wrote: »

When they decline him, they don't know he's disabled, so can hardly be blamed on discriminating against him on that basis!!!!!

And somebody has hit the nail very firmly on the head.

I remember many years ago, sat in my office when a member of staff came in and said "Mr Brown wants us to refund his bank charges".

I asked why, and established that there was no goodwill reason or error on the part of the bank I worked for to justify it.

The staff member trotted off to tell the customer the bad news.

A minute later a very large gentleman stormed in to my office effing and jeffing and accusing me of racism.

I simply told him that, until he came in to the office, I had no idea that he was black and as such must have made the decision without taking race in to account.

He wasn't too impressed when I suggested that to change my originial decision becuase I now know that he is black would surely be blatant racism .... I lived to tell the tale though .

CLAPTON

Theboysmum wrote: »

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.

If it's the principle that matters, then it seems all that is necessary is to describe his income from the trust as 'income' and his status as retired (albeit somewhat early). Depending upon the amount of income then he should be able to get CC or loan etc.

If it's the practicality of things that matters, then if he can access the capital of the trust then surely he can simply buy them when required.

savagej

I would certainly from the dictionary definition not feel bad about using the word retired, you mention you were scrupulously honest. Retired is what he is and he has a life long source of income. I will defer any further comment on this road to poet123 as I am also in the same position and use retired but when I try to explain it I get annoyed and dont come across in the dispastionate way necessary. I think making examples would be a good idea one man has a credit card, he is a bank clerk, and then use your son as the other example, then take a look at where the risk in lending lie, in the end it lies in the bank clerk possibly going to end up in a number of circumstances on is one a disability benefit for the rest of their life.

brians_daughter

OP He is medically retired.. He has been paid monies in light of an accident that had meant he can no longer work in his previous career...therefore he is retired from his profession on medical grounds. we have been through the same situ with my dad. although he was 45 at the time - he puts retired, or when available retired on medical grounds.

OP advice we would give anyone with no credit history is he needs to "start at the bottom" ie cap 1 classic, aqua or vanquis. Regardless of anyones income or employment status if they have not had credit before they will not get the best rates or types of cc's that are intended to spread the costs of large purchases at 0% or low interest. They would have to build up a history and usually by using one of 2 of the 3 cc's named above and paying in full every month..once he had run that account well for 12 months he can apply for a more mainstream cc

I can see where you are coming from, but really youa re barking up the wrong tree. Save your time and brain power and assist your son in doing the above if he really NEEDS a cc

He IS medically retired, he had no credit history... Follow the steps above and in 12 months he will be in a position to apply and be accepted for more mainstream products

Fang_3

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 sorry, but before didn't you say that your son had a very low income and that the money from the trust could not be counted as income? But now it is. Which is it?

You have to look at this from the bank's point of view - he's 27, has no prior credit history and is unemployed. It's nothing to do with his disability and you need to understand that and get rid of the chip on your shoulder.

Why can he not save up just like people had to do years ago?