Discriminated against as pregnant by HSBC - is this allowed?

Gaz83

Ultimately, until we have an answer to this question:

Gaz83 wrote: »

Did he / she actually say the reason for refusal was down to the pregnancy?

Then there's nothing much else that can be said.

meer53

The loan will have been declined on affordability/responsible lending practices, not the fact the OP is pregnant. It's a consolidation loan, trying to consolidate with a possible drop in income was never going to happen. Pregnant or not.

jonesMUFCforever

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

They cannot refuse you on grounds of gender. If they have refused to even take an application because somebody is pregnant I'd suggest that is indefensible.

Compensation isn't restricted to financial loss. Indeed, it's something that a stroppy solicitor could turn into a more awkward situation for the bank if they wished too.

Thanks for that. I assure you, I'm not an idiot.

I would be very surprised if you could find anybody who gets more than a few weeks at full pay.

Which is where, taken at face value, the bank has left itself open for a bit of a pasting if there's a desire to make something of it.

Re your last point - a bank can tell immediately through its internal credit scoring system whether a loan is available or not - without credit scoring you. If this is the case with OP it would have been a complete waste of time for the bank to take the application any further if its systems said no more lending.

Herzlos

Pugman77 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies. At least I know what not to say next time!

You mean, lying to the "do you forsee anything coming up which may affect your income?" question? I'd be careful there.

CHR15

I can understand the desire to lower monthly payments with a period of maternity encroaching but I can't grasp the extra 2k.
it might seem like more for less but it must certainly is not.

pjcox2005

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

I would be very surprised if you could find anybody who gets more than a few weeks at full pay.
QUOTE]





I'm fairly confident Jaguar Landrover have a policy of 52 weeks full pay so I think that view maybe a little narrow minded, but appreciate they seem like an exception. Is a dated article but this seems to support that.
http://www.topemployersforworkingfamilies.org.uk/downloads/company-winner-reports/61_top_employers_for_working_families_2009___jaguar_land_rover.pdf

Gaz83

CHR15 wrote: »

I can understand the desire to lower monthly payments with a period of maternity encroaching but I can't grasp the extra 2k.
it might seem like more for less but it must certainly is not.

Absolutely.

If it was as simple as borrowing extra money for lower payments then everyone would be doing it. Only way that a bank would ever dream of accepting it is if the loan was extended significantly, thus raising the amount of interest payable.

Gaz83

Anyroads, I suspect OP is a typical post-and-run who won't post again after getting answers she didn't want to hear, so the issue won't be clarified. Shame really, as it could help someone else in her position in the future.

Paully232000

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

They cannot refuse you on grounds of gender. If they have refused to even take an application because somebody is pregnant I'd suggest that is indefensible.

Compensation isn't restricted to financial loss. Indeed, it's something that a stroppy solicitor could turn into a more awkward situation for the bank if they wished too.

Thanks for that. I assure you, I'm not an idiot.

I would be very surprised if you could find anybody who gets more than a few weeks at full pay.

Which is where, taken at face value, the bank has left itself open for a bit of a pasting if there's a desire to make something of it.

There are some that get it, my other half for a start, and everyone else she works with who is pregnant.

But as for the OP, doesnt sound like she got to tell them anything about her finances so hard to say it was due to anything financial/affordability-wise.

magpiecottage

Although the bank has a duty to ensure it lends resonsibly, it also has a duty to ensure it does not discriminate on gender grounds. A blanket refusal to consider a pregnant woman would be indirect discrimination on gender grounds.

A decision to decline an application, after considering all the facts - including anticipated income fluctuations for whatever reason WOULD be discrimination but it would be a reasonable discrimination.

So I think it would need to consider not simply a forthcoming maternity leave but how long it would last for and how much earnings would fall during it - and also whether the father would take time off (or even give up working) instead.

If the OP feels she has been discriminated against unfairly, she is at liberty to complain to the bank and, if necessary, to the Financial Ombudsman Service.