Disability Discrimination Act 2005

TFD_2

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.

If you have savings / investments managed by your bank, which generate an income, then of course a bank will look to offer credit. Private banking (in the traditional sense, not the earn £75K a year and get a posh credit card) is there for these customers.

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.

Fang wrote: »

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.

I was responding to the point raised in the above post:D which you clearly disagree with as do I.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

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.

The OP needs to speak to a financial adviser to get advise on how to better manage the trust fund if her son has got all these assets tied up in a fund but has cash flow issues that make a CC necessary.

It's also safe to say that the OP has changed her story several times in this post, so very hard to know her genuine motive.

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

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.

There's not giving too much detail away, and there's giving glaring contradictions when something is question.

If it was about future need, then why does the OP not take the advice and get her son to do what every other unemployed 27 year old has to do when beginning to build a credit score? It certainly seems that she thinks her son shouldn't have to do this and that everyone else should be discriminated against, and so the principled argument rather goes out of the window.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

I was responding to the point raised in the above post:D which you clearly disagree with as do I.

!!!!!!?

If her son was in the same situation he is now, but was able bodied HE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN DECLINED. The bank didn't know he was disabled, so how on earth is this the deciding factor?

We don't know the extent of his trust fund. If it's substancial, then he should look at the private banking route. The rich kids with trust funds will be, hence the better availability of credit. It's unlikely they sent an application off to Vanquis...

Fang_3

poet123 wrote: »

I was responding to the point raised in the above post:D which you clearly disagree with as do I.

Yes, by that bank. But that's the benefit of Private Banking. So much easier to deal with.:)

No doubt the OP will be banging down the doors of Coutts&co demanding that they give her son an account.;)

poet123

The OP should indeed take legal advice on several issues, the assets tied so tightly in the fund that he cannot access reasonable amounts of cash as and when.

However, I would guess this is because if it was more readily available, it would be counted for any means tested benefit (which although the OP does not mention, may be in payment). It will have been put into this type of trust by a specialist solicitor to prevent this happening, either now, or in the future when he is living alone.

As I said, I don't think this is an argument because his current needs warrant a card, but rather than his mum is fearing fo rthe future. However, as his circumstances are unlikely to change he cannot improve his credit history, like every other 27 year old has the possibility to do, or at least he cannot change the source of his income, which would appear to be the sticking point.

Like it or not this is because he is disabled and unemployable, not because he is unemployed. So, imo the DDA does come into play at this point, and the OP needs specialist advice as to whether a case could be made.

It may not stick, but to repeatedly rubbish the OP and categorically state the DDA is not applicable is unfair and a dangerous tack to take, unless you have the legal knowledge to back up your assertions.

zppp

poet123 wrote: »

It may not stick, but to repeatedly rubbish the OP and categorically state the DDA is not applicable is unfair and a dangerous tack to take, unless you have the legal knowledge to back up your assertions.

To be fair it is not about rubbishing the OP, it is people giving their opinions based on the information on hand. Would you like to tell us how you are qualified to advise the OP, as you seem to be 'rubbishing' other people's opinons?

poet123

TFD wrote: »

!!!!!!?

If her son was in the same situation he is now, but was able bodied HE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN DECLINED. The bank didn't know he was disabled, so how on earth is this the deciding factor?

We don't know the extent of his trust fund. If it's substancial, then he should look at the private banking route. The rich kids with trust funds will be, hence the better availability of credit. It's unlikely they sent an application off to Vanquis...

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.

See above, the op states that the banks were fully apprised of the situation after the first refusal, and was still declined, or rather, the automatic refusal was not overturned by personal intervention.

TFD_2

poet123 wrote: »

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.

See above, the op states that the banks were fully apprised of the situation after the first refusal, and was still declined, or rather, the automatic refusal was not overturned by personal intervention.

Not sure why it would have been overturned, they don't want to issue to somebody who is unemployed. That's their right.

We've already discussed the OP's ignorance of suggesting that unemployment is usually a choice!