ubank Rejected 90-Year-Old's Savings Account Application - Age Discrimination? Advice Needed

Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:20
Last edited 27/07/2024 - 12:52 by 1 other user

Hello helpful souls, I'm seeking advice regarding a troubling situation with UBank.

My 90-year-old mother, who is retired and financially stable, attempted to open a savings account online but was rejected without clear explanation.

Key points:

  1. Mother owns a house, receives an old age pension, and has substantial cash savings.
  2. We used her passport for identification during application.
  3. Her Equifax report shows a very good credit history (we fixed an error regarding her sex).
  4. We corrected a name discrepancy on her Centrelink card.

Despite these factors, UBank staff have been unhelpful:

  • The first representative refused to explain the rejection.
  • The second suggested checking her Equifax report, which we did and fixed.
  • No one has provided specific information on what else we need to fix.

It feels like my mother is being treated unfairly, possibly due to age discrimination. She's being handled as if she were a potential money launderer, which is far from the truth.

What are our options to address this situation? How can we get UBank to reconsider or at least provide a clear explanation for the rejection?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help.

Financial Bank Account

Related Stores

ubank
ubank

Comments

  • SBOB on 27/07/2024 - 10:31
    +70

    What are our options to address this situation? How can we get UBank to reconsider or at least provide a clear explanation for the rejection?

    Not sure they are under legal requirement to accept all customers, or provide reasoning.

    It's a savings account so not sure credit reports or assets really matter, there's no line of credit being offered.

    There's plenty of other hisa accounts out there with close enough interest rates to not waste stress or effort. Apply to the next on your list and move on?

    Unless it's a systemic issue across all banks in which case raise an issue with the relevant ombudsman in your state.

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:46

      Thanks.

    • Roe Jogan on 28/07/2024 - 12:53
      +16

      what are the odds of the first comment being the most useful, one of the few posts where i could honestly say that

      • buckster on 29/07/2024 - 13:31
        +1

        Came for drama and saw helpful advice :/

        Edit: Second comment delivered, woohoo

    • dongltron on 28/07/2024 - 14:16
      -2

      credit reports do matter if identification is the issue.

    • zubzub on 28/07/2024 - 15:55
      +2

      Thanks for ruining the fun with a perfect response, jerk :)

    • drfuzzy on 28/07/2024 - 23:39

      You can be sure - there is no legal obligation to provide an account or explain reasoning.

  • Downvoter on 27/07/2024 - 10:32
    +33

    Elder financial abuse concerns

    • Bruceflix on 27/07/2024 - 11:13
      +2

      That was my first thought

      • marcozmitch on 28/07/2024 - 09:35
        +1

        I think it is important that your Mother speak on the phone (with you not in the room, banking regs. require this).
        It is a concern that with cheques not able to be used any more that (my) Mum and I continue to have problems in the finance area, with setting up alternatives easily.
        I am now required to make payments over the phone or via the internet.
        I would point out that my elderly mother keeps hold of her own medical scripts, visits banks in person, and (has a good mind) and retains control in all areas of her life, as much as possible.
        I do the shopping for her, visit the Dr with her to help with remembering things and that kind of thing.
        But I make it a point to show that my Mother is the one in control.
        I make no reflection on your issues and my Mother is a few years younger.
        The wearing of a hearing aid continues to be uncomfortable and is not worn.

        • Alley Cat on 28/07/2024 - 09:58
          +2

          AirPods (Pro) are great hearing aids just fyi. They don’t look like hearing aids which is a massive selling point for the demographic. Give them a go.

          • Headless on 28/07/2024 - 19:12

            @Alley Cat: i prefer airpods pro max

            • Boomstick on 29/07/2024 - 08:12

              @Headless: I hear there’s a new pro max ultra lux coming soon.

              • Headless on 29/07/2024 - 08:20

                @Boomstick: Slap Titanium on there and ill buy 5 at no matter the price

                • Daabido on 29/07/2024 - 20:21

                  @Headless: Introducing the new AirPods Pro Max Ultra Max Slap Titanium Plus.

                  The perfect gift for the well-heeled 90 year old in your life. Guaranteed ubank free.

          • marcozmitch on 29/07/2024 - 08:55

            @Alley Cat: Thanks!

          • oO0Dam0Oo on 29/07/2024 - 22:37

            @Alley Cat: I can just picture my uncle trying to pull them apart.

            • Alley Cat on 30/07/2024 - 09:22

              @oO0Dam0Oo: lol you must had one hell of a childhood with an uncle like that. They are not easy to pull apart, and the price point might stop people from pulling this kind of shenanigans.

      • Downvoter on 27/07/2024 - 11:52
        +43

        I’m suggesting that elderly persons are at an increased risk of financial abuse from others. I suggest you open yourself up to other perspectives rather than your agenda relating to banks and perceived age discrimination based on your incorrect assumptions.

          • SBOB on 27/07/2024 - 12:28
            +4

            @Lurker:

            Age discrimination by UBank?
            Or not?
            What am I missing?

            So if I told you I knew a 90 year old with a ubank account, would that invalidate your perception?

            You could have opened 10 new accounts with other banks by now

              • SBOB on 27/07/2024 - 12:47
                +28

                @Lurker:

                Your anecdotal evidence of knowing one 90-year-old with a UBank account doesn't invalidate the broader concern of potential age discrimination. If UBank has a policy or practice that generally prevents elderly individuals from opening accounts, it could still be problematic even if there are exceptions.

                But the opposite of your one anecdotal example means it's clearly age discrimination and ubank is clearly beaching banking guidelines. I swear people actively look for things to get enraged/rant about these days.

          • DingoBilly on 27/07/2024 - 12:29
            +6

            @Lurker: Could be that Ubank is the only good bank that worries about this, whereas others are happy to take your money and don't give a shit if grandma loses her life savings.

        • paloverde88 on 28/07/2024 - 13:07
          -1

          despite this, financial institution are not in a position to make moral value judgement. That's up to the Judge if it ever gets to the courts,

      • BLB1984 on 27/07/2024 - 12:22
        +19

        I think it's the fact that you said "we tried to" about 15 times during your paragraph showing that it's not her doing it in her own capacity.

        And you're the one who seems to be taking up arms trying to claim age discrimination. So there seems to be a clear connection where it just isn't only her.

        And therefore when there is small red flags to a bank they'd rather just stay out of it altogether which is a right of a private business.

        You've got all your paperwork in order now so nothing should flag (it sounds like the name issue is probably what flagged originally) so just move on to one of the other options like others have said.

        Or alternatively go to the ombudsman so then you have another party to be angry at when they are also unhelpful because not much can be done

        • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 12:24
          -1

          I got involved when the first rejection happened.

          That is how the "we" first happened.

          Then she applied again and got rejected the 2nd time.

      • justworld on 27/07/2024 - 16:23
        +8

        It's more that old people are more susceptible to scams.

        Given that banks have to spend resources trying to reverse scams - and noting that some idiots actually want banks to be responsible for scam losses - it makes sense that banks don't want to make trouble for themselves.

        If it was carte blanche, i.e. you lose the money you suck it up, then banks wouldn't care.

    • SnakeCasablanca on 31/07/2024 - 09:28

      Elder abuse and other scam concerns. Unfortunately old people keep getting scammed. So there is probably a risk rating on these type of accounts.

  • blighst on 27/07/2024 - 10:34
    +19

    They're under no obligation to do business with you (of course, it's not business savvy to randomly reject customers). I'd guess from the timing that there's some sort of KYC check your mother is failing. They likely won't tell you why, because that's practice - same reason banks won't tell you why you failed their credit card approval process.

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:46
      +1

      Thanks.

      • JDMcarfan on 27/07/2024 - 12:55
        +26

        yep this would be it. Your mother is failing a KYC check (likely due to the Centrelink issue) and given UBank doesn't have a protocol to identify a customer in-person, it's less risky/cheaper for them to just reject than figure a solution. Their products are tiered towards what they view as low cost/low risk/low effort clients, for which they offer a higher average savings rate.

        They do not need to provide any detail as to why they rejected you, and your involvement, esp. when its someone's who's 90 (i.e. high change of cognitive decline) where they cannot guarantee her independent decision making would provoke red flags everywhere. There's no way they'd be upfront and tell you this, hence the lack of response.

        It's unfortunate, but she'd be much better served with a larger FI (ideally a big4/major player, with a physical presence) that can appropriately on-board her.

        Also, credit ratings do not matter at all in this circumstance (given its a savings product), or really for any banking credit application in Aus. It's more of a general credit health check for private use (sometimes Telco's/Utilities will rely on these for their applications)

        P.S. I work at a large Australian bank

        • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 13:05
          +2

          Thanks.

          • Succulent on 28/07/2024 - 11:15
            +1

            @Lurker: You could have stopped arguing at this point as @JDMcarfan 's reply has summed out the situation perfectly, from the financial institution side. I can vouch for what was said and see that the comments are indeed based on experience working at large Australian bank.

            Logically speaking, of course they would not tell you the reason as they cant say for example: "the reason is, your mum has a higher probable chance of xxxx". It is a risk assessment with probability, derived from limited information that are present for them. Your rage in this post would be much longer if they did tell you their assumption, which you think is untrue and borderline accusing. Even prompting for more information from potential customer to establish the fact, can be seen as offensive.

            Every business has different risk appetite and one case of "bad apple" that they are risking to onboard could means millions in fine and affect the organisation's standing in public eyes. Companies does not always assess the risk from customer perspective, they will prioritise their shareholder first and then customer. If they prioritise customer first, before the business/shareholder, they probably register themselves as non-profit charity instead of pty ltd. Having said that i can see some bigger companies do allocate financial resources to lift the importance of their customer wellbeing and put customer at their center.

            • JDMcarfan on 28/07/2024 - 15:23
              +2

              @Succulent: OP is fixated on their conviction and doesn’t want to let it go.

        • eagle86 on 29/07/2024 - 09:29

          and what happens when all the banks determine that she (or anyone) is too much of a risk? is there not something equivalent to the telephone Telstra / Universal service obligation?
          A bank account is essential.

          • JDMcarfan on 29/07/2024 - 09:36
            +2

            @eagle86: that won't happen. If any big 4 did this, then I'd let OP go all hail mary and complain to whoever they want.
            Part of the reason your big 4 have lower average rates, is due to higher operating costs. They run branches and have a physical presence, and thus have the means to verify a client and confirm they are acting independently.

            They cannot (will not) turn down a customer (nor want to risk the negative publicity, even if they might be unprofitable) and only de-bank people if you have known financial/criminal convictions that would make you more risk than you are worth.

        • brandt on 05/08/2024 - 12:05

          Sadly even with physical presence banks are severely limited in their ability to serve complex needs. My Mum's account had an issue with KYC on a 10 year old account. She sent in the paper work required, but was rejected. She tried calling the bank and even with the interpreter it was an absolute confusion central. The bank refused to say which 100 point document was presenting with an issue, and then finally said we needed to take the documents to a branch. We finally got to the branch and they didnt know what to do, and we were back sitting in the branch calling the KYC remediation hotline. When that didnt work, Mum opted to close the account, walk across the shopping center to another bank and opened an account there. We neve could figure out what issue the first bank had.

    • paloverde88 on 28/07/2024 - 13:09
      -7

      Human Rights Act prevents this 'no obligation to do business with you'

      • SBOB on 28/07/2024 - 13:17
        +2

        Please quote the line/act within the "humans rights" legislation that dictates a bank is legally obliged to offer financial services to all customers, no exceptions….

        • paloverde88 on 28/07/2024 - 15:29
          -6

          Many things are not explicitly stated in law but its the commissioner or judge that interpretes, for instance back in the days when banks were charging late fees for everything because it was in the t and c but it took a royal commission into banking misbehaviour to find out that those charges were illegal to begin with yet it was not written in any pieces of law to begin with.
          There is a thing in legal circles where the judge takes into consideration what the intent of the particular act was and if the matter is in the spirit of the law it does not mean everything has to be matched word for word because this is not a murder case
          This is how precedence is set where the judge interprets what the Act intent was and if the decision the judge makes is in line with the intent of the Act in the spirit of the Act because not everything can be matched word for word

          • SBOB on 28/07/2024 - 15:49
            +7

            @paloverde88: thats a lot of words when 'It's the vibe of it. It's the Constitution. It's Mabo. It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe and ah, no that's it' could have covered it ;)

      • CalmLemons on 28/07/2024 - 19:54
        +2

        No. Not when an alternative is readily available, especially in a private sector business. A public hospital could not refuse to treat you for example. But a private business can refuse anyone without reason.

        There is no legal obligation to serve.

        • paloverde88 on 28/07/2024 - 20:26

          Even a women's only exhibition was ruled by the court you MUST let men enter despite according to you they are under no obligation to please everyone in the community or entertain to everyone and avcording to you anyone can cherry pick who they decide to do business with

          https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68770187

          • CalmLemons on 28/07/2024 - 22:18
            +1

            @paloverde88: In that instance the museum had:

            Provided a specific reason for their action
            AND
            Were rejecting all men
            AND
            the museum was the only provider of that service.

            This is different from a business choosing to refuse service to a specific person without giving reason/or not and that service being available elsewhere if it was essential.

            That said both parties in that court case seem obscene by any standards in my opinion

            • paloverde88 on 29/07/2024 - 02:14

              @CalmLemons: no difference
              the exhibition does not want to provide this exhibit to one gender
              when asked why by the court, I wonder why they did not say what you said I simply do not want to provide my exhibits to this gender, since I am under no obligation, why didn't they used your reasoning? because their lawyer must have advised them against saying that
              I am very sure every day we have clubs and exhibits that only caters to a specific group of people - this tells you, you cannot do that. But tjen you do have to drag them to court like you would drag this specific financial institution - without a court challenge, like bank fees no one know who is under what obligation. So you take them to court.
              not providing a reason why you refused service to a specific group in the community does not make it more noble. in fact it raises a flag about discrimination.

    • RefusdClassification on 28/07/2024 - 14:07

      If a shop was to put a sign saying, say, "We don't serve trans", or "We don't serve Muslims", the government and legal system would go full banzai on them. In America a photographer tried to refuse to photograph a gay marriage, and a baker refused to create a cake for a gay marriage, citing religious reasons. It didn't work out too well for them.

      Discrimination is refusing to provide a service to a particular individual for any reason, including being ill, old, poor, having a criminal record, and so on.

      • blighst on 28/07/2024 - 15:16
        +1

        Nothing to do with OPs case being old/sick/whatever. Bank can't verify them. Other 90 YOs are able to bank with ubank fine.

        Ubank aren't saying they're too old to bank with them smh

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:41
      -1

      thanks.

    • Baysew on 27/07/2024 - 13:26
      +5

      AFCA can help resolve complaints about a financial firm’s decision to close your banking facility.

      This page has some of the most common questions about the closure of banking facilities. It does not apply to complaints about:

      insurance policies or investment products
      a refusal by a financial firm to open a new account
      a financial firm’s decision to stop providing a banking facility to all customers.

      • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 13:34
        -1

        Thanks

      • paulojr on 30/07/2024 - 18:51

        thats the ticket, raise it with AFCA.

        Couple of things to be mindful of

        1. There is a technology called bio-catch being operated in some banks, I believe Ubank may have it, that is inherently discriminatory, it detects stuff like keyboard typing speed and behaviors and using AI tries to figure out if its a different person interacting. It will flag issues and you won't get a chance to challenge it. As with a lot of the AI tech around the technology is inherently discriminatory, e.g a person with cognitive disorders or even various neural disorders will have different behaviors interacting with the mobile app depending on whether they are having a good or bad day. You can't as a customer challenge this as they won't tell you what biocatch is doing. So AFCA is where I'd go to get a third party to ask why they are refusing account opening. A savings account is so trivial there should be no reasons not to open it other than a clear failure of KYC validation or confirmation your parent there is a terrorist. (AML/CF)

        2. There are known offers, e.g. ANZ Plus launched where the product team deliberately knew that couples and people with certain disabilities such as hearing/speech could not use their service. Their answer to customers, we'll roll that out in some future release. I don't think Ubank is doing this but just pointing it out that it does happen in banking. Too big to care.

        3. Elder abuse, yes is a real thing but its not about you helping someone, its about attempts by family to control the account. This sounds like creating an account not control. The trigger would have been questions trying to confirm if the person on the phone/message was the account creator. If you fail this, they'd likely have stopped the discussion. Given ubank does extreme things like syncing other financial service accounts by asking users to enter passwords of other banks (breaking the t&cs of those other banks and putting customers at full financial risk) I'd be surprised if they were excessively dillgent on this front!

        But yes AFCA is best bet if you can't get it sorted via ubanks channels. BTW I like the ubank service otherwise so I'd persist and get one.

        • Baysew on 30/07/2024 - 18:54

          So AFCA is where I'd go to get a third party to ask why they are refusing account opening.

          Why would you go there, if -

          It does not apply to complaints about:

          a refusal by a financial firm to open a new account

          • paulojr on 30/07/2024 - 18:58

            @Baysew: because of the refusal to give a valid reason, the bank must confirm its followed correct procedure which if what I read is true, hasn't occurred.

            UBank does not have the right to refuse an account without any solid grounds as its operating under the banking code of Australia, this is different to say a small retailer, banks do have obligations. The outcome might be the same if its someone they have a right to refuse but at least AFCA will undercover the reason.

            My suspicion is its just plan negligence as they don't put good people on the support line. Offshoring to people that don't even have basic training is what I'd seen at NAB/Ubank/Citi in recent years.

            • silverstone2023 on 30/07/2024 - 19:14

              @paulojr: From Section 6.2 of the ubank Savings T&Cs,

              6.2 How to set up a UBank savings account

              You can apply for a UBank savings account online at ubank.com.au – using the secure online form.

              The ways you’re able to submit an application may change from time to time. Please refer to ubank.com.au

              Please note that UBank reserves the right to accept or reject any application.

              https://cms.ubank.com.au/wp-content/uploads/usaver-terms-con…

  • ihbh on 27/07/2024 - 10:42
    +4

    What are our options to address this situation?

    Go elsewhere.

    How can we get UBank to reconsider or at least provide a clear explanation for the rejection?

    So you can nitpick, shame them/take them to court, etc.?

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:44
      -7

      Is there a problem with trying to figure out why Rabobank has no problem accepting my mother's application, but not UBank?

      Is that considered nitpicking in Australia?

      Don't elder Australians deserver a fair go?

      • xuqi on 27/07/2024 - 11:37

        " at least provide a clear explanation for the rejection?"

        Good luck with that, bank won't care or see any reason to provide an explanation.

      • dongltron on 28/07/2024 - 14:19
        +1

        Sure, elder Australians deserve a fair go. The problem here is you're taking it as some form of unfair rejection by the bank, just like… Because she's old, or something. There is a very reasonable explanation for why, and if they don't want to tell you they don't have to.

        • paulojr on 30/07/2024 - 19:04

          there are some reasons yes.. e.g. if they failed AML/CTF and were discovered to be a terrorist UBank cannot tell them.
          They have to report them and not tip them off until the police has a chance to investigate.

          But there is lots of possiblities where they need to tell them, such as a failure due to a mismatch on name as the data in UBank's system could be at fault or one of ubanks providers.

          This falls into the privacy laws and rules around companies being obligated legally to maintain accurate data and allow customers to change that data. btw and if the bank has faulty data they would be required to trigger a privacy assessment, that can't happen if the bank is allowed to refuse sharing data relevant to the customer to the customer.

          Banking law is painfully complicated but its rarely OK to stonewall a customer unless they are clearly dodgy!

  • askbargain on 27/07/2024 - 10:42
    +6

    if i were a bank, i would do the same for problematic customers

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:45
      +2

      What do you mean by "problematic customers"?

      • askbargain on 27/07/2024 - 10:49
        +2

        wasting a bank's resources entertaining your calls

        • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:52
          -5

          Don't elder Australians deserver a fair go?

          • askbargain on 27/07/2024 - 10:54
            +1

            @Lurker: nobody cares she's 90. does she want a fair go or special treatment?

          • Juice-Wa on 31/07/2024 - 07:58
            +1

            @Lurker:

            Mother owns a house, receives an old age pension, and has substantial cash savings.

            receives an old age pension

            Sounds like she's already getting a go that she shouldn't…

            How does a 90yo with a house and substantial cash get the pension? Smells like a dodgy child moving around assets to maximise inheritance. I doubt you care about elder abuse and this is some self serving exercise to have her open this account.

      • brendanm on 29/07/2024 - 17:32
        +1

        You. You are the problematic customer. Look at your replies here to people giving good solid advice. You just want to play the victim.

  • HeWhoKnows on 27/07/2024 - 10:45

    Try other options…..

    Rabo Prermium saver pays 5.45% up to $250K so a better deal than uBank if more than $100 on deposit
    Condition:Grow balance by $200 each month.
    Requires a transacation accounteither with Rabo or another bank for transactions and cash withdrawals

    AMP Saver pays 5.4% up to $250K so also a better deal than uBank if more than $100 on deposit
    Condition: Deposit $1000 in previous month but this can be withdrawn the next day.

    Macquarie Platinum Transaction account pays 4.75% up to $1M
    Fully fledged transaction account with Platiumum debit card and no conditions.
    No need for a second bank account but could pair with either of the above to earn better interest on bulk of savings

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 10:45

      Thanks.

    • MS Paint on 27/07/2024 - 13:38
      +4

      I'm quietly impressed that you didn't reply to the first thread.

      • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 13:49

        Which first thread?

        Can you please quote it.

        I am happy to oblige.

        • MS Paint on 27/07/2024 - 14:00
          +3

          I was replying to he who knows. He has a history of unnecessarily replying to the first thread for some god forsaken reason.

          • spackbace on 29/07/2024 - 19:10
            +1

            @MS Paint: Usually replies to top comment, then posts a main level comment further down

            Attention seeking

            • MS Paint on 29/07/2024 - 19:32
              +2

              @spackbace: That makes sense. Cheers

              HWK also generally replies 24 hours after the thread is posted. Rarely replies to a new thread. Friggin weird.

  • freefall101 on 27/07/2024 - 12:04
    +2

    The second suggested checking her Equifax report, which we did and fixed.

    Totally nothing to do with whatever this was and definitely discrimination.

    Banks are under no obligation to do whatever you want, and once an account is flagged once it's not surprising they didn't move forward. Savings accounts are low profitability for them, why take the risk?

    • mskeggs on 27/07/2024 - 12:28
      +1

      Agree with this, except I would think mismatched details between application and credit report would add to the score that green flags or red flags an application. (On rereading, I may be missing the sarcasm, or misinterpreted your comment)
      And I bet a repeated application after a fail adds to a score too.
      And because banks are increasingly being held responsible for fraud, financial abuse etc. against their customers, I am sure that older applicants are subject to a lower threshold for human review.

      And ubank probably have no incentive to resolve such marginal cases - doing so likely costs more than the account income could ever amount to.

      shrug
      Kogan declined me for a credit card, probably because I never carry a balance and was only applying for the welcome credit. I would have liked that welcome credit, but they are under no obligation to approve me, or reveal why they declined me.

      • freefall101 on 27/07/2024 - 12:31
        +3

        It was 100% sarcasm. Without knowing what the issue with the equifax report was, once an account gets denied for that it seems unlikely they'd bother green lighting it on a second shot. Particularly for something like a savings account, any level of risk is going to outweigh the benefits of $5 a month income.

    • dongltron on 28/07/2024 - 14:20

      lmao don't be ridiculous. she's failing an identification check.

  • Drakesy on 27/07/2024 - 12:43

    Go to another bank?
    Rabobank/ING both have equally good rates.

    I have a feeling theres more to this.

      • timthetoolman on 27/07/2024 - 13:24
        +5

        Definitely don't go through the banks that have accepted her. Try and 3rd and 4th with Ubank.
        Could even question if there's an element of racism if they decline her, if you try hard enough.

        • LFO on 28/07/2024 - 10:41
          +4

          No one has mention it before, but clearly it is gender discrimnation.

          :-|

      • Ryballs on 27/07/2024 - 23:46
        +4

        So you've already found another bank but came on here to whinge anyway.. Nice one

  • Dollar General on 27/07/2024 - 12:57
    +3

    Having no branches, maybe they have too many oldies clogging the help phone line when they forget to switch on their laptop

    • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 13:11
      -5

      LMAO.

      Yes, most likely they have more than their fair share of old ladies clogging up their help lines.

      And their KPI require they get more millennials to sign up.

      Rejecting old ladies sure like a good way to sell themselves to the millennials.

  • CyberMurning on 27/07/2024 - 13:26
    +2

    Bikies

  • try2bhelpful on 27/07/2024 - 13:37
    +1

    Wait until she tries to apply for a credit card. Once you are retired it doesn’t matter how much you have in assets or, what non payroll income you have, they won’t give you a new card. Won’t give you a reason for that either.

      • try2bhelpful on 27/07/2024 - 13:58
        +2

        I don’t think we are going to the toilet it is just we have a few issues that need to be addressed. An ombudsmen for the elderly would be a good idea. We should, at least, get feedback on why an application is unsuccessful.

        • Lurker on 27/07/2024 - 14:07
          -1

          I second your suggestion about getting feedback.

          That is how we learnt about the inaccurate information in Equifax and Centrelink after the 1st rejection.

          At least give us an avenue to fix any mistakes created that we could control.

          Is that too much to ask for?

      • Nillionaire on 27/07/2024 - 17:51
        +2

        How is Australia going to the toilet in this regard? We have better services and protections than most other countries.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join