applying for financial products: how do i describe myself?

pedlar

this is out of hand...

the last 2 posts are way out of line...i do not wish to continue in this thread because of the nature of the posts...i was defending my position because i was being accused of something i really wasn't interested in doing...and by trying to explain, i have been thrown further abuse...sure you can say i don't like hearing what you say so i do whatever it is you say i am doing...fine, i know what sort of person i am...and i don't intend to continue with this thread, because clearly just asking what i did has stirred up a load of moralistic bull...i tend to ask questions without being cautious about what the response may be...in that sense i do not learn my lesson.. i assume everyone else will be as goodnatured and trusting as i am...

the people that run this site are professional, thorough in their knowledge, non patronizing in their advice...unfortunately the people who post in the forums are not so approachable...

i shall not participate in this thread further...your criticism of my position is fundamentally incorrect to the point that there is nothing i can do to change it, and by withdrawing i leave myself open...so what? i get this sort of abuse all the time...you say whatever you want, then go away and think about it...the world is full of people who do not get it, and choose not to get it...

moose1982

For anything I apply for (mobile phone, utilities etc), I always say I'm unemployed due to disability. I see that as the truth and if the company does not have a tick box for that, well then they can make one! If the advisor I speak ticks another box and later someone says 'hang on, you aren't x', I would be able to say 'listen to the recording'. I see it as covering my own backside and I think we all need to do it in everything to do with our lives these days.

mealone

pedlar wrote: »

thanks for the info...hope u pass your tests! i didn't know anything about this...

have been through the system since taken ill..psychiatrists, pills, social workers, CPNs, counsellors, therapists, day centres etc...in other words hopefully that will "stand for something"

but will look into it, sounds like a real upheaval...

The past counts for nothing now, only medical proof from the last six months count which is why you need to start recording things now in anticipation for the change over.

I will pass the WCA easily to get into the support group because I can back up everything via written proof from the people that deal with my disabilities, you need to start your "paper trail" now and read up on the WCA so you can understand the criteria that applys to you and prove it so hopefully you dont need to go through the stress of a face to face meeting with ATOS (look them up here and anu other site that deals with long term sickness/disability!)

Yes this is a big upheaval, the biggest upheaval ever for the sick and disabled and some 40% or so fail the WCA, some win on appeal with appeals taking up to a year at present and that will go up because of the 12 month limit thats coming with the WRAG which means that anyone with savings or living with a working partner will get no sickness benefit at all.

7% currently get into the support group, thats how hard the WCA is to pass as the most seriously ill/disabled!

Good luck with the change over, we are all going to need it!

[Deleted User]

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

as i said above i now always put retired if disabled isnt an option(i have a number of cc`s taken out since disability forced me to stop working)the only time i ticked unemployed i was declined so i contacted the company and explained that i was disabled,within 2 minutes they had changed my application to retired and accepted my me with a large credit limit

Richie-from-the-Boro

woodbine wrote: »

as i said above i now always put retired if disabled inst an option(i have a number of cc`s taken out since disability forced me to stop working)the only time i ticked unemployed i was declined so i contacted the company and explained that i was disabled,within 2 minutes they had changed my application to retired and accepted my me with a large credit limit

All it took was an explanatory phone call from you to make the application 100% above board. Importantly the legal onus is then on the loan company and not on the applicant.

I agree with you John Woodbine, that's all it takes to keep the application within the 'spirit' of what you wanted from a loan company and what the loan company set as a bar to lending you their money. In this case a phone call and the truth was all it took. all it took was an explanatory phone call from you to make the application 100% above board. Importantly the legal onus is then on the loan company and not on the applicant.

That phone call changes the example I gave from :

- 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"

to ;

- the defence says "he never intended to defraud" m'lud
- the judge reliably states that there was no "implicit or explicit intent to mislead and gain a line of credit"

And most importantly if the O/P lost his benefit income as a result of the impending benefits reforms the loan company could not welch on the agreement and blame / sue the client for mis-representation.

NOTE
- many many thousands have not had to hand a sick note [ MED3 ] in for a decade or more
- many many of those same individuals have a stability of consistent income envied by for example the self employed
- many loan companies I suspect [ I'm guessing ] would be happy to lend on the basis that pedlar has a gold plated guaranteed income level
- his evidence for this would be that for the last 19 years he has a track record of faultless repayments on time, he should be proud of that record

seven-day-weekend

Isn't there an option to put 'other' and an explanation? Or perhaps tick 'retired' and write 'because of disability' alongside?

If there are not such options then I would put 'retired', but ring them to clarify.