Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A member

A Credit Union

Representatives

Self

Mr Eamon Cleary, Solicitor.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00012861-001

30/07/2017

The Complainant is a member of the Respondent Credit Union. He is a self-employed freelance writer / audio-visual artist.

On 18/10/2016 the Complainant completed a loan application looking to borrow the amount of €46,000 from the Credit Union. In reply he received a letter dated 02/11/2016 confirming to him that his loan application had been rejected. One paragraph of this letter reads as follows:

“I wish to confirm that on 25th October 2016, after careful consideration of all information submitted with your application and details from your meeting with the Loan Team, the Committee rejected your application as they deemed it was not for provident and productive purposes”.

This letter was signed by the Chairman of the Credit Committee of the Respondent Credit Union.

Following this rejection of the loan application there is an extensive exchange of email and telephone conversations in relation to re-submission of the loan application and further applications for different amounts.

The Complainant is not happy with the reasons stated for the rejections and believes these are due to his disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

1.       The Complainant owns an apartment in Dublin and informed the Respondent Credit Union that he wished to borrow against the apartment.

2.       At the time of the loan application the Complainant was seeking and referring to the advert on the Credit Union’s website that stated loans of €50,000 repayable over 15 years were available to anyone.

3.       The rental income from his apartment i.e. €1,500 would make the monthly re-payments of €500 comfortably affordable.

4.       At his first meeting with Credit Union personnel the Complainant alleges that he was ‘grilled’ with questions he believes should not have been asked e.g. “why do you have an apartment?” and “art, isn’t that like business, it sounds like business”.

5.       The Complainant found this type of questioning extremely uncomfortable, stressful and aggressive and resulted in him fumbling nervously with papers which seemed to irritate the two Credit Union representatives.

6.       The Complainant informed the two Credit Union representatives that he suffered from ADHD and PTSD and found himself repeating questions.

7.       The Complainant alleges that he was verbally informed that his loan application would not be successful before the application was filed for consideration.

8.       It is further alleged by the Complainant the he was told “I know it says it on the internet, the ad, but, not really, not for people like you, it’s unlikely you’ll get, I don’t think you’ll get it”. The Complainant then stated that the person saying this then quickly corrected herself by saying “we’ll submit anyway”.

9.       On the question of guarantors – these were merely acknowledged. No explanation was given to the Complainant as to why he was not allowed to supply the name of a guarantor.

10.   By telephone the Complainant was informed that his loan application had been rejected because it was found that it was not for provident and productive purposes.

11.   The Complainant informed the member of staff that he was speaking to on the phone that he found these terms offensive and sought clarification on the use of them. In response the staff member informed the Complainant that the “Board do not have to explain – these are just the words we use”.

12.   The Complainant felt that he was being called not provident and productive.

13.   Employees of the Respondent Credit Union refused to work with the Complainant like he had been told they would, they refused to inform him that they would not lend to him and allowed him to keep hanging on and being insulted while he did so.

14.   When the Complainant informed the Credit Union that he was making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission they had the audacity to inform the Complainant how the complaint’s process works and suggested that he write to their complaints department using the proper form which they sent him.

The Respondent Credit Union submitted a booklet of papers, this booklet contains information on credit application process and policies.

The Loan application process is a ten-stage process, as follows:

1.       Staff member enters application on system. Does ICB enquiry. Requests member to submit information required. Completes loan application checklist.

2.       Loan team reviews previous days loan applications. If needed will go back to staff member who took the application to request more information or clarification.

3.       Loan Team may need to contact member for further clarification or meeting arranged.

4.       Loan Team approve loans within their threshold as agreed by the BOD. Loans outside the threshold will be referred to the Credit Committee for consideration with a recommendation.

5.       Following decision on a loan, loan team or the staff member who entered the application will contact the member with the decision.

6.       If loan is rejected, member will be advised that they can appeal this decision in writing.

7.       If appeal is submitted, this will go back to the Credit Committee. If Credit Committee stand by their original decision to reject the application, the member will be advised and the appeal will be forwarded to the Board of Directors.

8.       If following the appeal to the Credit Committee, the member submits more information, this may go back to the Credit Committee and /or attached to the appeal going on to the Board of Directors.

9.       If the Board of Directors uphold the decision – this decision is final, member will be advised.

10.   Member may decide to apply for a new amount and / or for a different purpose, a new application process will begin.

I have considered this complaint very carefully and listened to both parties carefully at hearing on 16th March last.

In coming to any conclusion in this matter I should consider the relevant legislation, in this instant case I believe the relevant legislation to be the following:

1.       Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015.

2.       Credit Union Act 1997.

Employment Equality Acts - Section 38A – Burden of Proof.

The Equality Officer must first consider whether the existence of a prima facia case has been established by the Complainant. Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2004 sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.

Credit Union Act, 1997.

Section 35 (1) states as follows:

Subject to the following provisions of this Part, a credit union may make a loan to a member for a provident or productive purpose, upon such security (or without security) and term as the rules of the credit union may provide …………..

In their Credit Policy the Respondent Credit Union has, at section 3 Credit Assessment, the following:

All loans must be for provident or productive purposes. Each loan application will be considered on its merits and treated equally. In determining whether or not to grant credit, the Credit Union will have regard to the following underwriting criteria: -

·         Ability / Capacity of the member to repay the loan (A2R)

·         The Purpose of the Loan (impacts on risk and appropriate term)

·         Amount of Loan Requested

·         Character of the member / borrowing history / ICB report

·         Security available, where required

·         Any other information deemed appropriate for the particular loan application.

I am satisfied that each loan application is evaluated against the same criteria as set out above.

The Respondent’s evaluation of the loan application from the Complainant concluded that it did not feel that the loan was for provident and /or productive purposes. They are not saying that the Complainant is not provident or productive.

This being the case the Complainant has failed to produce facts upon which he can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred. No prima facie case has been established.

It is for this reason that the complaint fails.

As outlined above, the complaint fails.