MSE News: defends Mental Health & Debt guide after debt collectors' criticism

roger196

MSE_Dan wrote: »

The stat is taken from the Office of National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report 2001.
Dan

It would help if a full reference was given to this publication ( page number, table number, ISBN number) plus a web link, so that anyone interested could see the original info themselves.

Generally speaking, statistics are frequently quoted out of context. Interview surveys depend on the number of people asked and the method of selection of those asked. For example if I interview 100 people coming out of a local coucil building, I will get a very different answer to interviewing those leaving a football match. A telephone poll gives a different result to interviewing face to face in a shopping centre.

chris-j

I completely agree with Roger here. Too many surveys and stats are quoted without context. Even when source is provided this is irrelevant without full disclosure of the sample used and how the data was compiled.

All too often the desired outcome is known and question wording is loaded to achieve this and the organisations doing the survey tend to have a vested interest in a particular result.

In relation to mental health I have 100% sympathy with those genuinely suffering but I don't think counting every incident of people feeling pressured because of work, debt, family problems, etc as them suffering mental illness helps. If I was wanting to do business in UK, I would seriously have second thoughts if I believed Mind survey results.

I think the real pressure here should be put on government to ban PDL lenders and ambulance chasing lawyers from advertising on tv and radio, ban text marketing for all financial products and services and more vigorous controls by OFCOM on nuisance phone calls which these days seem to be increasingly related to financial related harrassment.

jamesd

MSE_Dan wrote: »

The stat is taken from the Office of National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report 2001.

Thanks for providing the source. For this reply I'll use Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England, 2007 which also gives that number.

The use of that number in this context should be reconsidered because it appears misleading. Lets look at where it comes from:

24.2% of those in the survey had the mental health problem of hazardous or harmful drinking, roughly defined as potentially having adverse health effects. 68% of respondents had only one condition, so if we exclude those who are drinking more than is good for their health the figure drops to 7.7%. Add back in those who are alcohol dependent and it rises to 13.6%.

That number is still going to be too high because it says little about the severity of the conditions and possible impact on dealing with debt but at least it has some chance of representing those who are more likely to have difficulty dealing with debt than the 25% one.

Now, alcohol clearly can be a factor when combined with debts. For the 5.9% with alcohol dependence it can potentially have a major effect on both incurring and being able to deal with debt. For the 14% of the 5.9% (so 0.8%) who are also receiving treatment for a mental or emotional problem it can clearly potentially very severely affect the ability to deal with debt.

For anyone who wants a better understanding of the real prevalence of mental health issues that can affect dealing with debt I recommend reading the full survey report.

Please switch to a number that might credibly represent those with a condition that will impair their ability to deal with debt. A number that is mostly young men drinking more than recommended while socialising doesn't.

ILW

jamesd wrote: »

Thanks for providing the source. For this reply I'll use Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England, 2007 which also gives that number.

The use of that number in this context should be reconsidered because it appears misleading. Lets look at where it comes from:

24.2% of those in the survey had the mental health problem of hazardous or harmful drinking, roughly defined as potentially having adverse health effects. 68% of respondents had only one condition, so if we exclude those who are drinking more than is good for their health the figure drops to 7.7%. Add back in those who are alcohol dependent and it rises to 13.6%.

That number is still going to be too high because it says little about the severity of the conditions and possible impact on dealing with debt but at least it has some chance of representing those who are more likely to have difficulty dealing with debt than the 25% one.

Now, alcohol clearly can be a factor when combined with debts. For the 5.9% with alcohol dependence it can potentially have a major effect on both incurring and being able to deal with debt. For the 14% of the 5.9% (so 0.8%) who are also receiving treatment for a mental or emotional problem it can clearly potentially very severely affect the ability to deal with debt.

For anyone who wants a better understanding of the real prevalence of mental health issues that can affect dealing with debt I recommend reading the full survey report.

Please switch to a number that might credibly represent those with a condition that will impair their ability to deal with debt. A number that is mostly young men drinking more than recommended while socialising doesn't.

I like many tend to dismiss the whole problem when interst groups massively overstate the problem. Same happened when netmums? came up with the figure that 25% of UK children were starving.
Can they not see that this sort of approach is conterproductive?

jamesd

I would hope so.

It's also sad to see Mind using such a number to represent their audience. A claim that one in four of "us" will experience a mental health problem with a picture of a mature woman when around half of the figure is young men engaging in recreational drinking is not the sort of thing that I expect to see from a reputable charity.

ILW

jamesd wrote: »

I would hope so.

It's also sad to see Mind using such a number to represent their audience. A claim that one in four of "us" will experience a mental health problem with a picture of a mature woman when around half of the figure is young men engaging in recreational drinking is not the sort of thing that I expect to see from a reputable charity.

Even sadder is when so called "journalists" use the same numbers without checking their veracity.

Guys_Dad

I have a son who has a brain injury - not mental health problems, so I know what it is like when debt collectors chased him. Some didn't adhere to the law and I had to step in and deal with them.

Some were paid, as he actually owed them money. Others refused to give details of what the debt was, so they didn't.

However, I dispute the fact that 25% of the adult population have mental health problems. If they are so depressed that they can't deal with self-inflicted debt, then I don't want them driving on the roads when not fully mentally up to capacity. I wonder how many were depressed or suffering from a mental health problem when they incurred the debt or if it was the fact of over extending their credit that caused the mental health problem.

At what point does being unhappy move to depression? Is it an exact science or just someone's opinion?

Personally, I am sceptical and see no reason why being depressed should give you some magic "get out of jail free" card. Debt collectors should treat all debtors equally - lenders are expected to - and with appropriate collection methods, but always bearing in mind that if someone owes money, they should pay.

The shining example of that is that much of the world's current financial predicament is because of sub-prime loan defaulters. Yes, that was irresponsible lending, but the point is that others are picking up that tab.

Petlamb

Wow. The fact that I have a mental health condition does not mean I'd be in any way shape or form considered unable to drive?!

It is a KNOWN symptom/factor of particular conditions that their ability to manage money is seriously impaired.

And as for the 'at what point does being unhappy move to depression' question - it doesn't generally (IME). Depression and general unhappiness are very different beasts.

And of course, unfortunately (unlike the guide I should add), it seems this thread has become all about 'depressives'... what about PDs, psychotic/neurotic illnesses, bipolar spectrum conditions, schizophrenic conditions, and many more - these can all have a huge effect. And very few make you incapable of sodding driving. -_-

jamesd

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If they are so depressed that they can't deal with self-inflicted debt, then I don't want them driving on the roads when not fully mentally up to capacity. I wonder how many were depressed or suffering from a mental health problem when they incurred the debt or if it was the fact of over extending their credit that caused the mental health problem.

At what point does being unhappy move to depression? Is it an exact science or just someone's opinion?

It's just a fact that some of the reactions to depression do make it hard to deal with debt. Avoiding stress is one reaction and that can include avoiding dealing with debts.

Interfering with normal life activities and assorted other symptoms are used to measure the degree to which depression can have an effect.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Personally, I am sceptical and see no reason why being depressed should give you some magic "get out of jail free" card. Debt collectors should treat all debtors equally - lenders are expected to - and with appropriate collection methods, but always bearing in mind that if someone owes money, they should pay.

Depression and many other things wouldn't be a get out of debt free card but they may require different debt collection approaches from the stereotypical pushing hard approach that can work with some of those who are just unwilling to pay. For someone who's depressed that approach can increase the problem instead of reducing it but other approaches may work.

But sometimes writing off the debt is the right and required by law thing to do. Consider some of the examples in the Office of Fair Trading guide:

• Bank provided loans of £55,000 to a person who was visibly drunk at the time he took them out and known to be having debt problems and bipolar, a condition which is known to cause irresponsible spending during the manic phase sometimes.
• Person with learning difficulties, debts and receiving severe disablement allowance. Applied for a credit card but couldn't remember his own address, told the lender he was unemployed and copied the income example from the application form. Credit card application accepted.

It's not hard to see that the applicants in those cases may well have not had the mental capacity at the time to make that decision and how the lender may end up required to write off the loans under the Mental Capacity Act. Just like a pub, you aren't supposed to be serving more to someone who's unable to make a decision.

Vampiric_Addiction wrote: »

(unlike the guide I should add), it seems this thread has become all about 'depressives'... what about PDs, psychotic/neurotic illnesses, bipolar spectrum conditions, schizophrenic conditions, and many more - these can all have a huge effect. And very few make you incapable of sodding driving. -_-

Probably reflects awareness of different conditions, or lack of that, and misunderstanding of just what depression can do to people.

ILW

The real problem would be if to cover themselves, lenders put a question in the application such as "Have you ever been diagnosed with a MH condition"?
and then turn down any applications for mortgages etc with a yes answer.
If someone with a condition wishes to be treated the same as anyone without, they have to suffer the same consequenses if it all goes wrong.