Tesco's credit card

gerrythegiant

I was pre approved for a Tesco's credit card with a 0% balance transfer rate all was going well until they contacted me asking where my income was coming from. As soon as I replied saying ESA income based and carers allowance I was turned down as told they don't accept ESA but would of accepted universal credit. There was no mention of this on their terms and conditions and tbh I felt victimised for my partner being disabled. I wrote and explained this to them and they replied saying basically it was their policy, but I'm now wondering if it's worth taking it to the ombudsman. It seems very unfair to me that a unemployed person on UC would of been accepted but because my partner is disabled and we are on legacy benefits are not. Just wondering what are your thoughts, is it worth persuing? 

MorningcoffeeIV

No. They're under no obligation to accept any specific benefit in their income assessment. 

Mnoee

They used to be more upfront and say an income of over £6k excluding certain benefits - including ESA, housing benefit... I can't remember them all! I don't know of that's still their criteria. It's definitely allowed. 

Tesco do accept PIP as income (or did, 18 months ago when I got one!) so if your partner receives PIP and is willing to apply, they may have more luck. 

MalMonroe

What you have said does come across as Tesco being discriminatory against disabled people, accepting people on one benefit but not on another, without giving any coherent or satisfactory explanation. Whether it's their policy or not they are not allowed, by law, to be discriminatory.

You could appeal to the Ombudsman on the grounds of disability discrimination. It doesn't cost anything to report to the Ombudsman and you have Tesco's final notification. You'd have nothing to lose. I'm not saying that you would win, either but there is the Equality Act 2010 which you could quote. 

In fact, this is what Citizens Advice says about discrimination - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/

Within that link they give links about discrimination, top right hand corner. 

Financial Ombudsman you can start a complaint online - https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

It's always worth asking questions and having a go. Good luck if you do decide to pursue.

Obviously, all just my own opinion.

[Deleted User]

You could make a written appeal if you feel strongly.

I would be surprised if an unemployed person on Universal Credit would be actually accepted, so that argument wouldn't strengthen your case. 

MEM62

MalMonroe said:

You could appeal to the Ombudsman on the grounds of disability discrimination. It doesn't cost anything to report to the Ombudsman and you have Tesco's final notification. You'd have nothing to lose. I'm not saying that you would win, either but there is the Equality Act 2010 which you could quote. 

As it is not the OP, but the OP's relative that is disabled this would be a case of indirect discrimination (and almost impossible to prove) if it were discrimination at all.  Personally, I do not see that it is.  Certain benefits are excluded because not all are long-term or guaranteed.  It would therefore appear that the bank is meeting its obligation in respect of responsible lending when certain benefits from those they will accept.  This is not a discrimination issue.  It is a risk assessment issue and the bank does not want the risk.  That is a commercial decision that they have every right to determine.      

WillPS

MEM62 said:

MalMonroe said:

You could appeal to the Ombudsman on the grounds of disability discrimination. It doesn't cost anything to report to the Ombudsman and you have Tesco's final notification. You'd have nothing to lose. I'm not saying that you would win, either but there is the Equality Act 2010 which you could quote. 

Certain benefits are excluded because not all are long-term or guaranteed. 

Employment isn't neccessarily long term and certainly isn't "guaranteed" either.

gerrythegiant

Thank you to all that have replied so far. Regarding  my partner who is disabled and I am unable to work as have to care for him 24/7 appears to put me at a disadvantage. I did actually say to Tesco cc representative and quote in my letter that all legacy benefits are being transferred to universal credit therefore I think it is unfair to disregard legacy claimants, but was pretty much ignored except for repeating I'm sorry and if it were UC I would of been accepted.

I just feel others in my situation should be aware and that it should be in the terms and conditions before you apply. Obviously I wouldn't have applied had I known. Thankfully they are removing my application from my credit file. 

gerrythegiant

MEM62 said
Certain benefits are excluded because not all are long-term or guaranteed.  It would therefore appear that the bank is meeting its obligation in respect of responsible lending when certain benefits from those they will accept. 

Just out of interest what benefits are long term or guaranteed?  Even pip is reviewed as is ESA. 

MEM62

WillPS said:

MEM62 said:

MalMonroe said:

You could appeal to the Ombudsman on the grounds of disability discrimination. It doesn't cost anything to report to the Ombudsman and you have Tesco's final notification. You'd have nothing to lose. I'm not saying that you would win, either but there is the Equality Act 2010 which you could quote. 

Certain benefits are excluded because not all are long-term or guaranteed. 

Employment isn't neccessarily long term and certainly isn't "guaranteed" either.

I do not see your point.  Employment income is different and therefore treated differently.  

WillPS

MEM62 said:

WillPS said:

MEM62 said:

MalMonroe said:

You could appeal to the Ombudsman on the grounds of disability discrimination. It doesn't cost anything to report to the Ombudsman and you have Tesco's final notification. You'd have nothing to lose. I'm not saying that you would win, either but there is the Equality Act 2010 which you could quote. 

Certain benefits are excluded because not all are long-term or guaranteed. 

Employment isn't neccessarily long term and certainly isn't "guaranteed" either.

I do not see your point.  Employment income is different and therefore treated differently.  

Your justification that some benefits are not included because they are not 'guaranteed' or 'long term' is undermined by the fact that employment isn't often guaranteed in any meaningful way in this day and age either. Jobs for life is a thing of the past.