Disability Discrimination Act 2005

TFD_2

zppp wrote: »

Agreed. What the OP would have to prove even if they were aware of this, is that they acted on the information re the disability, which one would have to prove, in order to fall under the DDA.

Fighting a losing battle springs to mind.

Sort of, but as well as not actively discriminating, they need to avoid situations, procedures, etc. that could not be discriminatory.

My point is that they couldn't give a toss if he's able bodied or not, it's his unemployment that is their issue. And you can discriminate against the unemployed all you want.

If he was able bodied and living off a trust fund he would still have been declined. Therefore his disability is not the important factor here.

zppp

TFD wrote: »

My point is that they couldn't give a toss if he's able bodied or not, it's his unemployment that is their issue. And you can discriminate against the unemployed all you want.

Agreed, lenders have to look at affordability, and without a regular income the OP's son has no chance of getting credit.

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!

.

TFD wrote: »

Not at all, I have merely given an opinion.

Then why make the categoric statement above? The Op may have a case and legal advice will determine that.

Fang wrote: »

That's nonsense. The OP's son is not a graduate, your son is; the OP's son has never had credit before, your son has; the OP's son is unemployed, and your son presumably is. So clearly your son's credit score would not be lower.

The Op's son has a current account with O/D facilities as does my son. So, if that is classed as credit because it has not been used but was available, then they are both in the same boat.

My son was an unemployed graduate whent he card was issued. The only difference between them is that my son is a graduate, and was actually unemployed and the OP's son was medically unemployable.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

Then why make the categoric statement above? The Op may have a case and legal advice will determine that.

This is a public forum where anyone can post their opinions. Therefore, if the OP feels they has a case, perhaps they should get some legal advice.

We are only going to give our opinions on here, and we don't charge by the hour.

poet123

TFD wrote: »

Sort of, but as well as not actively discriminating, they need to avoid situations, procedures, etc. that could not be discriminatory.

My point is that they couldn't give a toss if he's able bodied or not, it's his unemployment that is their issue. And you can discriminate against the unemployed all you want.

If he was able bodied and living off a trust fund he would still have been declined. Therefore his disability is not the important factor here.

So, you really believe that prior to Princes William and Harry entering the services they had no access to credit? or that none of their friends from Eton/Harrow had a CC?

The OP's son is not unemployed, he is unemployable, it is a critical distinction, but not one the banks are considering because it is probably not that common. That does not mean they are correct or should not be challenged.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

Then why make the categoric statement above? The Op may have a case and legal advice will determine that.



The Op's son has a current account with O/D facilities as does my son. So, if that is classed as credit because it has not been used but was available, then they are both in the same boat.

My son was an unemployed graduate whent he card was issued. The only difference between them is that my son is a graduate, and was actually unemployed and the OP's son was medically unemployable.

I must have missed the post where the OP said that her son has an overdraft available. Why can he not use that if that's the case?

Graduates are a much, much better risk than someone unemployed. Regardless of cause. And lenders will choose the best risk. They have set criteria, and if someone is unemployed then they do not meet the criteria and should not be given a credit card.

With all the holes and contradictions in the OP's story, I'm now leaning towards this being less about the need for a credit card, as it appears that there isn't actually a need at all, and more about the want to imply negative discrimination because the bank will not bend over backwards and positively discriminate for the benefit of her son. Either way, it's clear that this story has been embellished somewhat, and that doesn't help anyone.

poet123

zppp wrote: »

This is a public forum where anyone can post their opinions. Therefore, if the OP feels they has a case, perhaps they should get some legal advice.

We are only going to give our opinions on here, and we don't charge by the hour.

Fair enough, but if you couch them in a categoric manner when the reality is you do not know that you are correct, it could deter some people from seeking advice when a case could be made.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

So, you really believe that prior to Princes William and Harry entering the services they had no access to credit? or that none of their friends from Eton/Harrow had a CC?

The OP's son is not unemployed, he is unemployable, it is a critical distinction, but not one the banks are considering because it is probably not that common. That does not mean they are correct or should not be challenged.

Oh for crying out loud. Get a grip.

Prince William was a student, and a multi-millionaire, so it's unlikely that he would need a credit card, but he would have been able to get one through a student account should he have one. The same with Harry, but without the student part.

It's also likely that should they require one then they could get one from their bank, Coutts on the basis of being multi-millionares and having a significant income, not from a trust.

It's likely that the OP's son bank may not wish to give a credit card to someone on benefits as their only income (as the OP suggests) and I don't think either of the princes will be on benefits.

anewman

billbennett wrote: »

I've dealt with a similar issue when I was PA for a young disabled woman.

Indeed, the DDA would come into play if a lender "marked you down" on the grounds of being disabled.

However, because it's on the grounds of being unemployed, it's not covered at all by the DDA, and infact allowed by the Consumer Credit Act.

I see where you're coming from. Kind of unfair if being disabled = discriminated against when it comes to getting a job and that excludes you from everything else though.

poet123

Fang wrote: »

I must have missed the post where the OP said that her son has an overdraft available. Why can he not use that if that's the case?

Graduates are a much, much better risk than someone unemployed. Regardless of cause. And lenders will choose the best risk. They have set criteria, and if someone is unemployed then they do not meet the criteria and should not be given a credit card.

With all the holes and contradictions in the OP's story, I'm now leaning towards this being less about the need for a credit card, as it appears that there isn't actually a need at all, and more about the want to imply negative discrimination because the bank will not bend over backwards and positively discriminate for the benefit of her son. Either way, it's clear that this story has been embellished somewhat, and that doesn't help anyone.

I think it probably is more about principle than current need, but that is perfectly acceptable, sometimes principles are worth fighting for.

It is also very probably about possiblefuture need when the parents may not be around, which is why I would guess it is the mother who is pushing for the card.:)

I don't *think* it has been embellished, the Op is a new poster who may not have initially wanted to give too much detail on an open forum.