applying for financial products: how do i describe myself?

pedlar

when i apply for cards or accounts etc i generally describe myself as retired, because i have serious mental health problems and have not worked since i became ill at the age of 20...i am now 39...

however i do get turned down from time to time, and especially in the current climate, even though my credit rating is decent...

i am effectively permanently retired and my benefits reflect this: income support, DLA, housing benefit...

i am in other words not looking for work and on job seekers allowance etc...

i was recently advised from one source that they described me as self-employed, based on the stability of my situation and the reliability of my income...

i would appreciate some advice on whether i should describe myself thus in the future when making applications...i understand the severity of being misleading when applying for finance and am cautious about this...is anyone else in the same boat, and how do you approach it?

thanx for thoughts....:beer:

Richie-from-the-Boro

pedlar wrote: »

when i apply for cards or accounts etc i generally describe myself as retired, because i have serious mental health problems and have not worked since i became ill at the age of 20...i am now 39...

however i do get turned down from time to time, and especially in the current climate, even though my credit rating is decent...

i am effectively permanently retired and my benefits reflect this: income support, DLA, housing benefit...

i am in other words not looking for work and on job seekers allowance etc...

i was recently advised from one source that they described me as self-employed, based on the stability of my situation and the reliability of my income...

i would appreciate some advice on whether i should describe myself thus in the future when making applications...i understand the severity of being misleading when applying for finance and am cautious about this...is anyone else in the same boat, and how do you approach it?

thanx for thoughts....:beer:

Like all 'inventive' solutions the truth is the truth and only the truth and anything else is a lie in law. If ever your benefit was changed / reduced the intent to mislead would be exposed to whoever to lied to, this of course could / would / should lead not only to the recovery of whatever advantage you gained in the civil courts but could also lead to a criminal conviction in the criminal courts.

The fact of the matter is you will almost certainly face a re-examination of you claim within the very near next 12 months when all claimants are transferred from IB / DLA whatever to WCA / PIP.

This transition from your current benefit in the next year may / may not change your income but will certainly change the type and name of the benefits you currently receive.

[Deleted User]

if the application doesnt allow me to put "disabled"then the next best description on all the forms is "retired"

Bigmoney2

Are you in receipt of an ill health pension? If not i wouldn't consider you 'retired'.

I would think unemployed would be more accurate as you are not working , regardless of claiming JSA or not.

pedlar

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Are you in receipt of an ill health pension? If not i wouldn't consider you 'retired'.

I would think unemployed would be more accurate as you are not working , regardless of claiming JSA or not.

i don't put unemployed because there is virtually no chance i will ever work, due to the illness...i am not in the market looking for a job....

pedlar

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Like all 'inventive' solutions the truth is the truth and only the truth and anything else is a lie in law. If ever your benefit was changed / reduced the intent to mislead would be exposed to whoever to lied to, this of course could / would / should lead not only to the recovery of whatever advantage you gained in the civil courts but could also lead to a criminal conviction in the criminal courts.

The fact of the matter is you will almost certainly face a re-examination of you claim within the very near next 12 months when all claimants are transferred from IB / DLA whatever to WCA / PIP.

This transition from your current benefit in the next year may / may not change your income but will certainly change the type and name of the benefits you currently receive.

i guess its not a good idea then! thanks for explaining that...

not clear what the shake up will be about the benefits....anywhere i can read up on it?

rogerblack

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Like all 'inventive' solutions the truth is the truth and only the truth and anything else is a lie in law.

While this is to some extent true, there is not usually one selection on a list that unambiguously describes most people.

Retired is - IMO - quite reasonable.
Following financial mismanagement of pension plans, someone can be forced to exit retirement and seek work. This does not make them not retired at the time.
If there is no prospect of work, and the person believes themselves likely to be on invalidity benefits forever, I don't see an inaccuracy with them describing themselves as 'retired'.

Richie-from-the-Boro

rogerblack wrote: »

While this is to some extent true, there is not usually one selection on a list that unambiguously describes most people.

Retired is - IMO - quite reasonable.
Following financial mismanagement of pension plans, someone can be forced to exit retirement and seek work. This does not make them not retired at the time.
If there is no prospect of work, and the person believes themselves likely to be on invalidity benefits forever, I don't see an inaccuracy with them describing themselves as 'retired'.

- I disagree

The fact of the matter is the O/P's intention is to circumnavigate the creditworthiness check to get [ already refused when his true status was declared ] a line of credit by 'massaging' his true social status is to gain pecuniary advantage by deception.

Put a~n~other way the O/P is standing in front of a Magistrate and :

- the defence says "he never intended to defraud" m'lud
- the judge reliably states that the "implicit and explicit intent was to mislead and gain a line of credit"

My reasoning on this rogerblack is that notwithstanding 19 years of consistent stability of income the type / size / and reliability of that income is / was / and will always be impermanent until he is 65+ years old. There is as most here know, no guarantee of a lifetime award it can and frequently does, disappear in a flash particularly at the moment with the ongoing PIP transitions.

The O/P will at the end of the day, choose whichever advice 'best fits' his needs at this time. His whole Raison d'être for asking the question here was to circumnavigate the truth of his financial circumstances by intentionally misdescribing the the stability of his income on a credit check . Having been refused a line of credit because the credit check failed .. .. he changes the credit check outcome from (1) unstable income benefit recipient .. .. to (2) stable retired income.

(1) - unstable / inconsistent / can be taken away anytime
(2) - stable, consistent guaranteed

mealone

pedlar wrote: »

when i apply for cards or accounts etc i generally describe myself as retired, because i have serious mental health problems and have not worked since i became ill at the age of 20...i am now 39...

however i do get turned down from time to time, and especially in the current climate, even though my credit rating is decent...

i am effectively permanently retired and my benefits reflect this: income support, DLA, housing benefit...

i am in other words not looking for work and on job seekers allowance etc...

i was recently advised from one source that they described me as self-employed, based on the stability of my situation and the reliability of my income...

i would appreciate some advice on whether i should describe myself thus in the future when making applications...i understand the severity of being misleading when applying for finance and am cautious about this...is anyone else in the same boat, and how do you approach it?

thanx for thoughts....:beer:

Your situation is not stable, no disabled persons situation is now stable because you/me/them are currently all getting reassessed for ESA (where many will lose their benefits after 12 months under the changes currently being approved by parlement) and the change to PIP is at present very very unclear who the winners and losers may be.

Retired is just that, retired from work and not unable to work unless you are officially retired like me (I got a pension for disability at 25) you really need to tick other and explain your situation unless there is a suitable box to tick, if their is no other box tell who ever you are applying to that their is no suitable box for you and explain it to them so they can decide where they think you fit.

Your right to be cautious about giving misleading information that can be used against you but your certainly not alone in being in the situation you are in so they must be used to dealing with people unabled to work due to disability and by raising the point that no box fits you they might eventually change the forms to include us as a group as a whole.

pedlar

rogerblack wrote: »

While this is to some extent true, there is not usually one selection on a list that unambiguously describes most people.

Retired is - IMO - quite reasonable.
Following financial mismanagement of pension plans, someone can be forced to exit retirement and seek work. This does not make them not retired at the time.
If there is no prospect of work, and the person believes themselves likely to be on invalidity benefits forever, I don't see an inaccuracy with them describing themselves as 'retired'.

i do understand that some might find my self description as retired a little odd...i have in the past felt the same because i am nowhere near the age of most retired people...

but at the end of the day there is a social stigma against mental illness, and i have now learnt to accept this, even if other people deny it exists...

as you put it, sometimes the forms do not always give opportunity to be as full and accurate as desired when ticking boxes...so retired is generally what i put, and what my long term bank of thirty years usually uses...

pedlar

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- I disagree

The fact of the matter is the O/P's intention is to circumnavigate the creditworthiness check to get [ already refused when his true status was declared ] a line of credit by 'massaging' his true social status is to gain pecuniary advantage by deception.

Put a~n~other way the O/P is standing in front of a Magistrate and :

- the defence says "he never intended to defraud" m'lud
- the judge reliably states that the "implicit and explicit intent was to mislead and gain a line of credit"

My reasoning on this rogerblack is that notwithstanding 19 years of consistent stability of income the type / size / and reliability of that income is / was / and will always be impermanent until he is 65+ years old. There is as most here know, no guarantee of a lifetime award it can and frequently does, disappear in a flash particularly at the moment with the ongoing PIP transitions.

The O/P will at the end of the day, choose whichever advice 'best fits' his needs at this time. His whole Raison d'être for asking the question here was to circumnavigate the truth of his financial circumstances by intentionally misdescribing the the stability of his income on a credit check . Having been refused a line of credit because the credit check failed .. .. he changes the credit check outcome from (1) unstable income benefit recipient .. .. to (2) stable retired income.

(1) - unstable / inconsistent / can be taken away anytime
(2) - stable, consistent guaranteed

i detect a little bit of prejudice, if you don't mind me saying...

you are making a mountain out of a molehill...i was merely asking advice...your moralistic tone is ever so slightly offensive, presumptuous and pompous...

but i grant that if you wish to sound superior, then that is perfectly within your right:D