Disability Discrimination Act 2005

TFD_2

opinions4u wrote: »

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 .

Good example.

The discrimination in this case is against him being unemployed, not the reason for it...

Disabled + unemployed = no card
Disabled + employed = maybe a card
Able bodied + unemployed = no card
Able bodied + employed = maybe a card.

As there's currently not an unemployed discrimination act (maybe there would have been if Labour had stayed in for much longer) then this seems more than acceptable.

poet123

TFD wrote: »

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.

He is not unemployed, he is unemployable due to disability. If the rejections have been made purely on the basis of his "perceived" status then the form needs to be re designed to include another option take account of the sector of society that the OP's son belongs to.

I am not sure whether the CC companies have been aprised of his actual situation, rather than the one they perceive exists from the completion of the form.

If they are simply refusing on the basis he is unemployed because there is no other option, and are unaware of his real status, then obviously they are not acting in a discriminatory fashion, if the OP has explained the situation and they have still refused him, then they quite clearly are.

It would seem appropriate to use the term medically retired, regardless of his age, so if that option exists that is the route I would take.

Theboysmum

Several points.

On legal advice, the compensation was paid into a trust fund, the assets and income of which are for the benefit of my son on the signature of the two trustees. The income from investments purchased by the trust must flow into the trust fund for tax purposes and is not counted as his personal income, which is from disability benefits and is therefore low. Trust fund rules are very convoluted and the number of people eligible to hold the particular trust fund he has is particularly low.

A debit card is good to purchase items only up to the amount in the current account at the time of the purchase and renders him unable to take advantage of short-term offers on large items in his own name. As the current account holds only a small balance, with the larger balance being in a trust account - which cannot be granted a credit card as it is two-signature account - the intention (other than to build a credit history) is to have the ability to make a larger purchase or several smaller purchases than would be covered by the amount current account at the time, with the credit card bill for all those items being paid by one cheque (two signatures) at the end of month. In practice, there is no reason why he could not continually transfer small amounts from the trust account into his personal current account to ensure that he would be able to make purchases with his debit card. The reality of that system is that each transfer from the trust account costs £5 and takes several days, with a same day transfer costing £25. None of these options is financially sensible.

I believe he is being discriminated against when the lenders decline him, as it is perceived he is unemployed by choice with the possibility/option of changing his status rather than unemployed because of recognised disability, a status unlikely to change regardless of how much he desires it. There is no option to tick for that eventuality and even after it was explained in great detail the reply is that the automated system has declined. Therefore, the card services are fully apprised of his circumstances but still state that he does not meet their criteria. He is not expecting a credit card at the best rates as he recognises that he has no credit history; this is the point of the exercise but even the Vanquis card at 40% interest, designed as a credit builder, has declined him although his Experian score is 840, deemed to be a 'fair risk'. Having applied for and been refused three credit cards, he would be foolish to re-apply for at least six months but, as he is unemployable due to disability, it is hard to see how the decision will change.

The myriad of recent equality and diversity initiatives and the different discrimination acts have been instigated entirely to ensure that people with special needs have those special needs taken into consideration and are not treated as if everyone was on a level playing field, which necessarily results that they would be disadvantaged. To deny a disabled person to participate in a meeting, if all other criteria are fulfilled, purely because their disability prevented them from accessing the venue would be unlawful. Just because they cannot initially access the room in the same way as an able-bodied person makes it illegal to preclude them from taking part. Special consideration must be given to them accessing the venue; the difference here is that the reason is taken into account and special measures taken as to do otherwise would contravene the DDA.

TFD_2

Theboysmum wrote: »

Several points.

On legal advice, the compensation was paid into a trust fund, the assets and income of which are for the benefit of my son on the signature of the two trustees. The income from investments purchased by the trust must flow into the trust fund for tax purposes and is not counted as his personal income, which is from disability benefits and is therefore low. Trust fund rules are very convoluted and the number of people eligible to hold the particular trust fund he has is particularly low.

A debit card is good to purchase items only up to the amount in the current account at the time of the purchase and renders him unable to take advantage of short-term offers on large items in his own name. As the current account holds only a small balance, with the larger balance being in a trust account - which cannot be granted a credit card as it is two-signature account - the intention (other than to build a credit history) is to have the ability to make a larger purchase or several smaller purchases than would be covered by the amount current account at the time, with the credit card bill for all those items being paid by one cheque (two signatures) at the end of month. In practice, there is no reason why he could not continually transfer small amounts from the trust account into his personal current account to ensure that he would be able to make purchases with his debit card. The reality of that system is that each transfer from the trust account costs £5 and takes several days, with a same day transfer costing £25. None of these options is financially sensible.

I believe he is being discriminated against when the lenders decline him, as it is perceived he is unemployed by choice with the possibility/option of changing his status rather than unemployed because of recognised disability, a status unlikely to change regardless of how much he desires it. There is no option to tick for that eventuality and even after it was explained in great detail the reply is that the automated system has declined. Therefore, the card services are fully apprised of his circumstances but still state that he does not meet their criteria. He is not expecting a credit card at the best rates as he recognises that he has no credit history; this is the point of the exercise but even the Vanquis card at 40% interest, designed as a credit builder, has declined him although his Experian score is 840, deemed to be a 'fair risk'. Having applied for and been refused three credit cards, he would be foolish to re-apply for at least six months but, as he is unemployable due to disability, it is hard to see how the decision will change.

The myriad of recent equality and diversity initiatives and the different discrimination acts have been instigated entirely to ensure that people with special needs have those special needs taken into consideration and are not treated as if everyone was on a level playing field, which necessarily results that they would be disadvantaged. To deny a disabled person to participate in a meeting, if all other criteria are fulfilled, purely because their disability prevented them from accessing the venue would be unlawful. Just because they cannot initially access the room in the same way as an able-bodied person makes it illegal to preclude them from taking part. Special consideration must be given to them accessing the venue; the difference here is that the reason is taken into account and special measures taken as to do otherwise would contravene the DDA.

As intelligent people, a lot of us do understand the point of a trust fund, and how it differs from personal assets and cash. However I find it very strange to withdraw such small amounts. Most people would take a regular income from it, ideally building up a reasonable balance in his current account.

You talk about continually withdrawing small amounts - make your life easier -withdraw less frequent (but maybe regular) larger amounts.

I also find it quite ignorant for you to suggest all unemployed people are this way due to choice - there are many different reasons as to why this can be the case. The lender will not assume unemployment is voluntary.

The card issuers may unfairly be discriminating against people due to being unemployed. But surely if their discrimination was against disabled people as you suggest, then whether they can in fact work would not be a factor?

poet123

If after visiting your own bank with all the documents mentioned in my first post, and having explained in detail to a real person, your son is still refused, then I think you should take legal advice.

One of my sons, was offered (and declined) a CC without making an application for one, when he graduated with a law degree. he had no prior credit history, and no offer of employment in the pipeline.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

One of my sons, was offered (and declined) a CC without making an application for one, when he graduated with a law degree. he had no prior credit history, and no offer of employment in the pipeline.

Sounds fishy, you only have to read the forums here to see how hard it is to get a credit card with no history or job!

It's not unheard of for people to be offered cards, but then declined when they apply. So this is possible.

Also banks will often offer credit facilities based on how a current account has been run. They like to see regular, consistent income, but from the comments the OP has made, this doesn't sound like the case with her son.

Fang_3

Theboysmum wrote: »

Several points.

On legal advice, the compensation was paid into a trust fund, the assets and income of which are for the benefit of my son on the signature of the two trustees. The income from investments purchased by the trust must flow into the trust fund for tax purposes and is not counted as his personal income, which is from disability benefits and is therefore low. Trust fund rules are very convoluted and the number of people eligible to hold the particular trust fund he has is particularly low.

A debit card is good to purchase items only up to the amount in the current account at the time of the purchase and renders him unable to take advantage of short-term offers on large items in his own name. As the current account holds only a small balance, with the larger balance being in a trust account - which cannot be granted a credit card as it is two-signature account - the intention (other than to build a credit history) is to have the ability to make a larger purchase or several smaller purchases than would be covered by the amount current account at the time, with the credit card bill for all those items being paid by one cheque (two signatures) at the end of month. In practice, there is no reason why he could not continually transfer small amounts from the trust account into his personal current account to ensure that he would be able to make purchases with his debit card. The reality of that system is that each transfer from the trust account costs £5 and takes several days, with a same day transfer costing £25. None of these options is financially sensible.

I believe he is being discriminated against when the lenders decline him, as it is perceived he is unemployed by choice with the possibility/option of changing his status rather than unemployed because of recognised disability, a status unlikely to change regardless of how much he desires it. There is no option to tick for that eventuality and even after it was explained in great detail the reply is that the automated system has declined. Therefore, the card services are fully apprised of his circumstances but still state that he does not meet their criteria. He is not expecting a credit card at the best rates as he recognises that he has no credit history; this is the point of the exercise but even the Vanquis card at 40% interest, designed as a credit builder, has declined him although his Experian score is 840, deemed to be a 'fair risk'. Having applied for and been refused three credit cards, he would be foolish to re-apply for at least six months but, as he is unemployable due to disability, it is hard to see how the decision will change.

The myriad of recent equality and diversity initiatives and the different discrimination acts have been instigated entirely to ensure that people with special needs have those special needs taken into consideration and are not treated as if everyone was on a level playing field, which necessarily results that they would be disadvantaged. To deny a disabled person to participate in a meeting, if all other criteria are fulfilled, purely because their disability prevented them from accessing the venue would be unlawful. Just because they cannot initially access the room in the same way as an able-bodied person makes it illegal to preclude them from taking part. Special consideration must be given to them accessing the venue; the difference here is that the reason is taken into account and special measures taken as to do otherwise would contravene the DDA.

You're not making sense. Before you said that the credit card would be used to spread the cost of more expensive items, but now you're saying that the cost will be met in full by the trust at the end of the month.

It's highly offensive for you to suggest that the majority of unemployed people are so by choice, this is not the case, any more than it is the case that your son is disabled by choice.

The fact is that your son does not meet the requirements for a credit card and as credit is not a right, he should simply save the money up, or have money transferred out of the trust to pay for the more expensive larger items.

There is a clear reason why your son is being denied a credit card and as they don't know about his disability, it cannot be that. Your son should not be given any advantage over that of someone else in the same situation and all your bleating is not getting you anywhere other than up people's noses.

Could you clear up why you say that your son will never work, but then say that he is hoping to? Could you also clear up why he, as a 27 year old, is not doing this himself?

CLAPTON

the practical problem is simply solved by just moving a few grand into his bank a/c; practical problem completely solved without having to borrow

the other issue seems more to do with trust law (that I don't understand) than anything to do with discrimination about his disability

TFD_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

the practical problem is simply solved by just moving a few grand into his bank a/c; practical problem completely solved without having to borrow

the other issue seems more to do with trust law (that I don't understand) than anything to do with discrimination about his disability

But then the OP wouldn't be able to moan on about how all the banks are discriminating blaah blaah. She's not looking for advise - many of us have come up with some good ideas - but to rant on about discrimination that is not happening.

Indie_Kid

poet123 wrote: »

One of my sons, was offered (and declined) a CC without making an application for one, when he graduated with a law degree. he had no prior credit history, and no offer of employment in the pipeline.

When I was unemployed (it was between college and uni, I believe) i got offered a credit card and said no - I don't want or need one. I then got told "we''ll only give you one if yo earn x amount of money per year".