Skip to main content

Ethics of Lending & Borrowing when your Benefits stop

‘I had no clue why my universal credit claim was closed. I have not told DWP that my circumstances have changed.  I had taken out a loan for £5000 whilst I made an appeal against the decision of the DWP; otherwise, I won’t be able to pay my rent.’ 

Mila’s situation raises a number of questions in terms of whether her Universal Credit claim should have been stopped by the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP), or if she should have obtained the loan in the first place to pay her rent or that the appropriate loan company should have even given Mila the loan.  When I spoke to Mila though, her survival instinct drove her to make the application for the loan. If she had taken it out unethically, that no doubt raises more questions.

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a number of changes in the benefit system. One of these changes was the introduction of Universal Credit. Instead of making a number of claims for means tested benefits - such as support for housing cost and personal allowance; claimants would receive one payment per month, a claim to be make online. Mila was a low income worker who worked consistent hours but her income was not enough to cover her rent as a housing association tenant in a gentrified borough of Hackney. A top up from Universal Credit was a way she managed her finances. When her account was closed, the first thing in her mind was to find a way to challenge the DWP.

The legal process for Mila to make this challenge is to go through a Mandatory Reconsideration process, whereby a decision made by its representative is subject to an appeal. If Mila is unsuccessful with this process, she may have to bring a claim to the First Tier Social Security Tribunal. If the decision of the Tribunal is unsatisfactory for Mila, she may have to request for a ‘Statement of Reason’ within a month and then decide whether to make an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Legal Aid is only available to her if she considers appealing to the Upper Tribunal. 

If a delay occurs in making the Mandatory Reconsideration decision to cause her financial hardship then, according to Child Poverty Action: ‘a ‘quick win’ is possible in cases of poor decision making and delay in public bodies making a decision.’

A threat of Judicial Review may accelerate the decision-making process by the DWP.  It states that pre-action stage is cost free:

‘It just takes [into account] the time of you writing the Pre-action letter. If the decision is not changed at the Pre-action stage… with their claim [they] will have lost nothing. If your client wants to proceed with their claim, legal aid is available for Judicial Review.’

There is also an issue with Mila when it comes to the ethics by which she obtained the loan.  If she obtained the loan by providing false information she may be committing fraud.  The lender would have to take Mila to the County Court and recover the money under civil fraud claim. In my professional experience, a lender rarely takes this step to recover the money. It may just bring a claim for the debt owed. 

In terms of criminal fraud, however, Mila would be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England. If she was prosecuted in the criminal court and found guilty, she could be imprisoned and/or fined for obtaining the money dishonestly.

Although the focus has been on Mila’s actions and intentions to obtain the loan, what responsibilities lie with the lender? According to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) - the firm must undertake a creditworthiness assessment in accordance to its rules and take into account due regard to the outcome of that assessment in respect of affordability risk, in order for the lender to be a responsible lender. 

Naturally, without knowing the full facts of Mila’s case, it’s difficult to know if the lender has fully complied with the FCA’s rules. Also, did the lender request for   evidence of Mila’s actual income? Aside however, the real question for me is: what steps has the creditor taken to show that it would able to recover the loan from Mila?

Mila may default in paying her loan. If she does, what debt option will Mila have to resolve her problems? What can the lender do when Mila defaults in paying her loan?  According to the FCA:  ‘When dealing with customers in default or in arrears, a firm should pay due regard to its obligations under Principle 6 (Customers’ interests) to treat its customers fairly.’ 

If the suspicion is that the lender broke the rules, Mila may argue that it had lent her the loan irresponsibly. If this is the case, she may initially want to make a complaint to the company concerned. If she does not get adequate remedy from the company, she could make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS would then investigate Mila’s complaint and investigate the actions of both Mila and the lender. This is what the HOS has to say if there is a case for irresponsible lending:

‘Our general approach is that the customer should be put back in the position they would have been in if the problem hadn’t happened. We may also ask you to compensate them for any distress or inconvenience they’ve experienced as a result of the problem.’  

Still, it would be too early for me to jump to the conclusion on Mila’s case. It was clear to me that Mila’s struggle for survival made her obtain the loan. When ethics is involved, however, it raises a number of other questions - fairness needs to be at the heart of the process either when she is borrowing or when the lender is lending.  It will be interesting to see the outcome of the appeal process, when it comes to the DWP’s position, since for Mila, her problems started once her benefit stopped.


Popular posts from this blog

A debt free path for a mental health sufferer

It’s a well-known fact that individuals who suffer from a hampered mental capacity - be it mental health or learning difficulties - are most likely to be vulnerable in our communities. They are also more likely to be victims of miss-sold products and services by companies, even though organisations that are providing financial products and services have a duty under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to take extra care towards these individuals. This is what the FCA has to say about vulnerable customers: ‘  The vulnerability of the customer, in particular where the firm understands the customer has some form of mental capacity limitation or reasonably suspects this to be so because the customer displays indications of some form of mental capacity limitation  (see  ■  CONC 2.10) But due to a culture of intensive selling to consumers, generated by employers placing and enforcing - often difficult and unrealistic - performance goals which are attached to tempting

Betar Bangla radio’s Ripon Ray: How fashionista turned political activist and debt advisor

PUBLISHED:  09:02 13 March 2019 |  UPDATED:  09:03 13 March 2019 Emma Bartholomew Ripon Ray: Picture: Rukya Khan ​Debt advisor and radio talk show host Ripon Ray tells Emma Bartholomew how he’s seeing more and more people who are unable to just pay the basic bills Ripon Ray: Picture: Nick De Marco Self-confessed “arty-farty creative” Ripon Ray originally set out to be a fashionista in life, when he “found his calling” and changed track to become an activist. He’d been studying at the London School of Fashion, but going on an anti-fascist protest “triggered a couple of things”. “I dumped my studies and went to Kingsley College where I was doing full-on activism, and organising protest marches,” he told the  Gazette . “I loved it but I got kicked out of there because I was too much of an activist and I wasn’t focusing on my studies.” He knuckled under, bagged a history degree and started out in the charity sector as a housing advisor. Being mugged i

Is Council Tax really Poll Tax? Where is the momentum for a new campaign?

‘I have not been able to pay my council tax for last four years. Bailiffs have lied to me to get money from me. I still can’t afford it!’  says Joanna Robinson on Money Matters show on East London Radio in March 2018.   During the period 2016-17, bailiffs were used by councils on nearly 1.5 million occasions in order to attempt recovery of council tax arrears. As in Joanna's case, residents were summoned to court for being too poor to pay - accruing court costs, subjected to the ignominy and anxiety having to face enforcement agents, and already too poor to pay, further indebtedness.   As I hear the horror stories of bailiff’s knocking on debtors’ doors under the new Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS), I am beginning to worry that the Scheme is really just a Poll Tax rehash. I was too young to remember what the Poll Tax was when it was first introduced in the late 1980s. My parents never spoke about it. In my work I started to notice from 2013 onwards that mo