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

jamesd

That question and that response would definitely be a problem since it would be illegal discrimination. Lenders should only be declining if at the time of the application they don't have the mental capacity. The OFT guide has quite a bit to say about this sort of thing.

If the lending was done when someone had the mental capacity, that still doesn't mean that the same debt collection approaches should be used. Those should be adjusted if necessary.

mynameistallulah

ILW wrote: »

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.

I agree - I have a MH condition but have always managed to manage my financial affairs. For me to be denied credit on the grounds of having a MH condition would be discriminatory, I would rather be judged as an individual, not as a label.

ILW

jamesd wrote: »

That question and that response would definitely be a problem since it would be illegal discrimination. Lenders should only be declining if at the time of the application they don't have the mental capacity. The OFT guide has quite a bit to say about this sort of thing.

If the lending was done when someone had the mental capacity, that still doesn't mean that the same debt collection approaches should be used. Those should be adjusted if necessary.

You do seem to be condraticting yourself here. I an earlier post you made the analogy that a pub should not serve a drunk. What is the difference between that and lending money to someone you know is likely to have problems due to mental illness?

Magi74

ILW wrote: »

You do seem to be condraticting yourself here. I an earlier post you made the analogy that a pub should not serve a drunk. What is the difference between that and lending money to someone you know is likely to have problems due to mental illness?

I'd argue that "being drunk" is generally a binary decision - there's a difference between "drunk" and "unable to speak, stand or walk as a result of alcohol". Moreover, you don't need a medical condition to decide if someone has had too much to drink.

There is a difference between "mild" MH and more "severe" forms of MH - in the latter case there's a fair argument that that person may not be capable of making the decision. So should the lender know about "severe" MH problems before offering credit? (and how do we define "severe" MH problems anyway?)

Meanwhile the other side is the strain on MH that comes for finding oneself overcommitted when it comes to debt. What happens if the debt was caused by fraud? Family bereavement? Redundancy? What if the MH problems become a gambling problem, which makes the debt problems worse? None of those problems are the fault of the debtor.

Hmmm....I've tied myself in knots! But that's the point - MH is not a simple thing to attach a label to.

If a debtor has produced a SoA (endorsed by a debt charity) then the creditor has to reasonably acknowledge that pressurising for extra money is not going to help. Of course that's the basic job description of a credit controller - get as much money as you can!!:eek:

jamesd

ILW wrote: »

You do seem to be condraticting yourself here. I an earlier post you made the analogy that a pub should not serve a drunk. What is the difference between that and lending money to someone you know is likely to have problems due to mental illness?

The difference between being an alcoholic and being drunk. You can serve an alcoholic if at the time you are doing it they aren't drunk. Like many other mental health conditions being an alcoholic doesn't always deprive you of the mental capacity to make the decision. For those who are well treated it may almost never do that, for others it may do so routinely. But even for those there can be times when they do have the capacity to decide.

To avoid unlawful discrimination lenders have to decide whether the person did or didn't have the mental capacity at the time of application.

It's not easy. It's really worth a read of the OFT guidance to learn more about what they have to say on the subject. It's useful educational material for anyone who wants to improve their undertanding of the issues.

fatbelly

debtwizard wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]I have posted 'twice' on the Credit Today website that ran the article on 23 July about this, on both occasions it has been removed. Here is what I said about the booklet and MSE.

'Many individuals who are in debt are often subject to unnecessary harassment by lenders so it is important that they know their rights and how to deal with overzealous debt collection agencies and bailiffs.

I applaud the work Martin Lewis has done to produce a booklet to help not only those in debt but their families and friends as well so that they all understand more what assistance is available.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Just remember it is not a crime to be in debt so ensure you are treated with respect. The last debtor’s prison was shut in 1869 and society needs to move on and help those that can’t pay as against the wont payers.[/FONT]'

Debtwizard

They won't like that on the Credit Today site. The only comment that survived on the article about Sara de Tute was 'Well done and good luck Sara'

You'll have to be more sneaky. Say seven nice things about them with the initial letters spelling out W.A.N.K.E.R.S.

Hanky_Panky

"However, it would’ve probably been better for it to contact us directly beforehand and open a dialogue, rather than putting its foot in its mouth with this ill-thought through press release regarding a delicate subject."

Because I'm sure you approached them in the same manner before publishing your guide......really no ? Quelle surprise !

Petlamb

The guide wasn't a snide press release. It was created to HELP people. I think there's a pretty big difference personally.

Steve_Warwickshire

Lowell, a purchaser of unenforceable debt (statute barred) they have,in the past,even emailed me claiming to be a catalogue stating that i need to contact them to arrange delivery of a parcel. JOKERS.

BTW, I dont owe them a penny.
I would not trust these dopes with a wad of old chewing gum, I refuse to have any contact with them, eventually they do go away.
maybe they should change their name to PLONKER & co