Refusal to open a savings account under a Power of Attorney

Zanderman

I can't see that discrimination legislation applies to this at all.

Banks can choose the eligibility conditions for their accounts - as BooJewels points out above. 

And anyway, in the case of PoA it's the attorney applying for accounts, not the donor (the person who gave the attorney authority), so the donor's disability isn't a relevant factor.

The only relevant factor is that it's being done under PoA and banks manage PoA in differing ways - from bank to bank and account to account.  That has been clear from many forum threads about PoA. 

If a bank won't play ball on your particular request under PoA just go to another bank, don't waste time trying to make a case for them to change their minds - because they won't. 

eskbanker

Zanderman said:

And anyway, in the case of PoA it's the attorney applying for accounts, not the donor (the person who gave the attorney authority), so the donor's disability isn't a relevant factor.

I don't think this line of argument really works - by definition, the attorney is acting on the donor's behalf (with the latter's money) and so any infringement of rights does relate to the donor, who is thereby being denied access to the benefits of the relevant account.

In terms of the broader picture, I'm sure the above posts are correct that some financial institutions aren't set up to deal with PoA, but it would be interesting to see the outcome of a legal challenge to this if someone is able and willing to construct and pursue a case of unlawful discrimination, if the institution's policy can be demonstrated to penalise certain sections of society unfairly and they're held not to be making reasonable adjustments.

IanManc

Barkin said:

eskbanker said:

Barkin said:

eskbanker said:
I don't believe it would - the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination based on certain protected characteristics:

to protect people from discrimination on grounds of:

• disability (or because of something connected with their disability)

My wife has POA for her dad, who has dementia. 

Having been dealing with this for a couple of years now, I'd suggest that it's most definitely a disability. 

Whether the law/legislation takes the same view, I've no idea. 

It would seem to, yes:

https://www.gov.uk/when-mental-health-condition-becomes-disability
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

OP simply referred broadly to "people who, for whatever reason, cannot deal with their own financial affairs", but yes, fair to say that there will be some scenarios that do fall within the above definitions.

Thank you 👍      

I'm not sure what you think you were thanking, but @eskbanker gave links to the statutory definitions of disability and the government guidance as to when a mental health issue becomes a disability. 

Neither of those show or support the contention that a financial institution not providing accounts for attorneys acting under a power of attorney is discriminatory against disabled people.

People grant power of attorney because they want to give to someone else an ability to manage their affairs. Reasons for that vary from going to live abroad for a few years or for good, going on holiday and something needing to be signed while they are away, to things far more grave, such as a diagnosis of impending dementia.

The problems are:

You don't need to be physically disabled to grant power of attorney and it is likely that only a small proportion of donors are physically disabled because physical disability of itself doesn't automatically preclude you from dealing with your affairs,
you can't be mentally disabled when you grant power of attorney as you need to have full mental capacity to execute the documents so at the time of granting the power no donors are mentally disabled,
no one knows when any donors become disabled,
no one knows how many or what proportion of donors are disabled, and
no one keeps records of why donors grant power of attorney.

Therefore no one can show that a financial institution failing to offer accounts to attorneys discriminates against disabled people because the evidence to do so isn't in existence.

Apart from that, plenty of institutions make accounts available to attorneys, and the ones that don't offer accounts do not deserve the OP's friend's business anyway. There isn't any point in being the OP being "really cross" - it is just a waste of energy.

Barkin

IanManc said:

Barkin said:

eskbanker said:

Barkin said:

eskbanker said:
I don't believe it would - the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination based on certain protected characteristics:

to protect people from discrimination on grounds of:

• disability (or because of something connected with their disability)

My wife has POA for her dad, who has dementia. 

Having been dealing with this for a couple of years now, I'd suggest that it's most definitely a disability. 

Whether the law/legislation takes the same view, I've no idea. 

It would seem to, yes:

https://www.gov.uk/when-mental-health-condition-becomes-disability
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

OP simply referred broadly to "people who, for whatever reason, cannot deal with their own financial affairs", but yes, fair to say that there will be some scenarios that do fall within the above definitions.

Thank you 👍      

I'm not sure what you think you were thanking, but @eskbanker gave links to the statutory definitions of disability and the government guidance as to when a mental health issue becomes a disability. 

For which I was, and still am, grateful! 

JustinSurf

It does seem to be discriminatory to me.  I have a similar experience. I am trying to open ISAs for both of my aged parents whom have limited capacity (no mobile phone, no email, etc). I tried the fintechs - online and via App, but accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone - face scans, etc etc as part of verification. The difference in rates available means it might be worth getting them each a separate mobile phone contract to just set up the accounts! 

HillStreetBlues

JustinSurf said:

It does seem to be discriminatory to me.  I have a similar experience. I am trying to open ISAs for both of my aged parents whom have limited capacity (no mobile phone, no email, etc). I tried the fintechs - online and via App, but accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone - face scans, etc etc as part of verification. The difference in rates available means it might be worth getting them each a separate mobile phone contract to just set up the accounts! 

For your case I don't think it's discriminatory, the rules are the same for everyone

Eco_Miser

HillStreetBlues said:

JustinSurf said:

It does seem to be discriminatory to me.  I have a similar experience. I am trying to open ISAs for both of my aged parents whom have limited capacity (no mobile phone, no email, etc). I tried the fintechs - online and via App, but accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone - face scans, etc etc as part of verification. The difference in rates available means it might be worth getting them each a separate mobile phone contract to just set up the accounts! 

For your case I don't think it's discriminatory, the rules are the same for everyone

The rules being the same for everyone would be discriminatory if that prevents persons with certain disabilities from qualifying. Eg. if the rules require attendance in person in a room accessible only by a steep flight of stairs, to give a silly example.

Ergates

Eco_Miser said:

HillStreetBlues said:

JustinSurf said:

It does seem to be discriminatory to me.  I have a similar experience. I am trying to open ISAs for both of my aged parents whom have limited capacity (no mobile phone, no email, etc). I tried the fintechs - online and via App, but accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone - face scans, etc etc as part of verification. The difference in rates available means it might be worth getting them each a separate mobile phone contract to just set up the accounts! 

For your case I don't think it's discriminatory, the rules are the same for everyone

The rules being the same for everyone would be discriminatory if that prevents persons with certain disabilities from qualifying. Eg. if the rules require attendance in person in a room accessible only by a steep flight of stairs, to give a silly example.

In that example (and many other real world examples) yes.   But I don't think "accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone" falls into this bracket as "phone ownership" isn't a protected characteristic.  Also, discrimination is allowed when it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - in this case, preventing fraud would be a legitimate aim.

mab3000

JustinSurf said:

It does seem to be discriminatory to me.  I have a similar experience. I am trying to open ISAs for both of my aged parents whom have limited capacity (no mobile phone, no email, etc). I tried the fintechs - online and via App, but accounts can only be set up in the name of the person owning the mobile 'phone - face scans, etc etc as part of verification. The difference in rates available means it might be worth getting them each a separate mobile phone contract to just set up the accounts! 

Are you saying that your parents have limited capacity because they don’t have a mobile phone or email? 

If so, this isn’t what lacking capacity relates to in terms of power of attorney. It relates to if the person lacks the mental capacity to make financial decisions for themselves. 

daveyjp

Providers  will be mindful of whether a fixed rate account is suitable for all customers with a POA.  For some it will be, for some it won't, the problem is they can't assess this.

They will be aware of the risk of someone investing a large amount of money under a fixed term POA, the customer then needind quick access to the money and being penalised for the withdrawal.  This then ends up in a complaint to the bank for allowing a POA account to be opened for someone it was totally unsuitable for.