Membership restriction

MagicSean

I am currently a member of a particular credit union. I recently applied for a car loan for my partners car. My application was rejected on the grounds that she was not a member of the institution. I asked if she could join and was told that we would have to be married for her to be entitled to join. I asked what would be the story if we were a same sex couple and they said the same rule would apply. This does not seem right to me. They are openly discriminating against possible members based on marital status and sexual orientation. Can financial institutions limit their membership like this?

Our man in Havana

Get them to put that in writing. I bet they will back down when pushed.

You can complain to the equality tribunal about this but you need it in writing first.

MagicSean

Is it actually contrary to any legislation though?

Plazaman

Why not just say the car is for you, doubt they have time to check?

MagicSean

Plazaman wrote: »

Why not just say the car is for you, doubt they have time to check?

They require a letter of offer from the car dealer and also the loan includes a part payment for finance owed in my partners name. I did offer to purchase it in my own name but this was rejected too. I know financial institutions are rejecting a lot of applicants but I don't think this is an acceptable reason to do it.

Our man in Havana

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Is it actually contrary to any legislation though?

Equal Status Acts 2000-2008

See here.

johnnyskeleton

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I am currently a member of a particular credit union. I recently applied for a car loan for my partners car. My application was rejected on the grounds that she was not a member of the institution. I asked if she could join and was told that we would have to be married for her to be entitled to join. I asked what would be the story if we were a same sex couple and they said the same rule would apply. This does not seem right to me. They are openly discriminating against possible members based on marital status and sexual orientation. Can financial institutions limit their membership like this?

Hold on a minute now, is there something you're not telling us?

After all, you are not married and they didn't discriminate against you.

Is this a credit union that is set up for a particular group or class e.g. gardai, doctors etc? If so, then they are perfectly entitled to restrict it to such people and their spouses.

So I think you may have deliberately or otherwise left out the vital piece of information. In the normal course of events, most credit unions that offer services to the public don't discriminate on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hold on a minute now, is there something you're not telling us?

After all, you are not married and they didn't discriminate against you.

Is this a credit union that is set up for a particular group or class e.g. gardai, doctors etc? If so, then they are perfectly entitled to restrict it to such people and their spouses.

So I think you may have deliberately or otherwise left out the vital piece of information. In the normal course of events, most credit unions that offer services to the public don't discriminate on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation.

Yes it is limited to a certain group and their spouses and family. However their rules allow only for a spouse to join who is married and do not allow for common law spouses or civil partnerships.

I'm not deliberately leaving anything out. How exactly would that benefit me on an internet forum?

shaneybaby

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yes it is limited to a certain group and their spouses and family. However their rules allow only for a spouse to join who is married and do not allow for common law spouses or civil partnerships.

I'm not deliberately leaving anything out. How exactly would that benefit me on an internet forum?

Civil Partnership / common law spouse does not equal marriage. Their rules ie. St Pauls Garda Credit Union or the ESB credit Union (still going?), involve allowing only a select group of members in. They only want married couples or employees. up to them.
Portmarnock case? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1103/breaking34.html Although that was on the basis of Section 9 of the Equal Status Act which refers to clubs registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts rather than a credit union;

johnnyskeleton

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yes it is limited to a certain group and their spouses and family. However their rules allow only for a spouse to join who is married and do not allow for common law spouses or civil partnerships.

I'm not deliberately leaving anything out. How exactly would that benefit me on an internet forum?

There is a massive difference between a credit union that only offers their services to a certain group and their spouses and family, and a credit union that offers its services to the general public but refuses to deal with unmarried or homosexual persons.

There is no real clear concept of common law spouses in Irish law (arguably it doesn't exist), and there are savers in the Equal Status Act for bona fides providers of services to limited special interest groups.

Also, it's kinda a storm in a teacup, as there are any number of other credit unions and banks for her to choose from.

Seanbeag1

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I am currently a member of a particular credit union. I recently applied for a car loan for my partners car. My application was rejected on the grounds that she was not a member of the institution. I asked if she could join and was told that we would have to be married for her to be entitled to join. I asked what would be the story if we were a same sex couple and they said the same rule would apply. This does not seem right to me. They are openly discriminating against possible members based on marital status and sexual orientation. Can financial institutions limit their membership like this?

I might be mis-reading this part but did they specifically tell you that civil partnerships didn't count or were they telling you that if you were in a civil partnership they would treat you in the same way as a married couple?

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

I might be mis-reading this part but did they specifically tell you that civil partnerships didn't count or were they telling you that if you were in a civil partnership they would treat you in the same way as a married couple?

They said civil partnerships didn't count, only marraige.

Jo King

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

a credit union that offers its services to the general public.

There is no such thing. Credit Unions are required to ensure that all of their members belong to the "common bond". The bond can be based on occupation or geography or some other criteria. It is rational to be very wary of "common law" applicants. A "common law " spouse can be long term or very short term. Marriages tend to be long term.Spouse can by law pledge each other's credit. Credit Unions do not want to find a lot of members have no connection with each other save for the fact that some of them went out with a member at some time in the past.

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote: »

There is no such thing. Credit Unions are required to ensure that all of their members belong to the "common bond". The bond can be based on occupation or geography or some other criteria.

The point I was making is that there is a difference between a body that limits itself to certain people and their spouses, which wouldn't be discriminating within the meaning of the act if they refused to permit someone who was not one of the group or a spouse, and a body that offers services to the general public in a discriminatory fashion as the OP was attempting to make out.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point I was making is that there is a difference between a body that limits itself to certain people and their spouses, which wouldn't be discriminating within the meaning of the act if they refused to permit someone who was not one of the group or a spouse, and a body that offers services to the general public in a discriminatory fashion as the OP was attempting to make out.

I didn't try to make that out at all. You simply misunderstood. I said that I was a member and that we would have to be married for her to join.

So basically, a credit union would be allowed discriminate on the grounds of marital status and sexual orientation by their wording in the defining of the common bond?

johnnyskeleton

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I didn't try to make that out at all. You simply misunderstood. I said that I was a member and that we would have to be married for her to join.

So basically, a credit union would be allowed discriminate on the grounds of marital status and sexual orientation by their wording in the defining of the common bond?

If you stand back from it though, are they really discriminating on the basis of marital status, or are they discriminating because she is not an X (insert profession) and she is not the spouse of an X, and the credit union's mandate is to look after members of X and as a concession also permit the spouses of X become members?

Put another way, if they limited it only to members of X and made no concession in respect of spouses, there wouldn't be any issue.

I'd agree with you to a certain extent that it is somewhat closed minded to permit only spouses as opposed to long term partners, but as Joe points out, maybe they are of the view that a marriage is more permanent than a long term relationship.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you stand back from it though, are they really discriminating on the basis of marital status, or are they discriminating because she is not an X (insert profession) and she is not the spouse of an X, and the credit union's mandate is to look after members of X and as a concession also permit the spouses of X become members?

Put another way, if they limited it only to members of X and made no concession in respect of spouses, there wouldn't be any issue.

I'd agree with you to a certain extent that it is somewhat closed minded to permit only spouses as opposed to long term partners, but as Joe points out, maybe they are of the view that a marriage is more permanent than a long term relationship.

Whatever their beliefs the effect of their membership policy is to discriminate against people based solely on marital status and also on the grounds of sexual orientation (given that gay people can't get married). The fact is that all my partner would have to do join would be to change her marital status.

Their opinion on wether a marriage is more stable should not be relevant. I have been to three weddings in the last two years and two of the couples have already split up. In addition I have already made a long term commitment to my partner by getting a joint mortgage together.

I cant say I am particularly surprised. The government use the same discriminatory practices in revenue. An unmarried couple cannot share tax credits. Fianna Fail justified this by claiming it was protecting the institution of marraige. I would disagree. I would consider it to undermine the institution of marraige by reducing it to a mere financially convenient contract.

234

On the tax issue the government's hands are tied by Murphy v Attorney General and Muckley v Attorney General. There might be some issue with the Credit Union not accepting civil partnerships as they are more akin to marriages, but exclusively for same sex couples. There is no question of them discrimination on the basis of marital status otherwise. The issue is that they are restricting membership to a certain group. If your friend, not being a member of the group, tried to join it would be irrelevant if they were married or not, they would not be allowed to join because they are not a member of that group. Long term partners are not allowed because there is no legal connection between them.

MagicSean

234 wrote: »

On the tax issue the government's hands are tied by Murphy v Attorney General and Muckley v Attorney General. There might be some issue with the Credit Union not accepting civil partnerships as they are more akin to marriages, but exclusively for same sex couples. There is no question of them discrimination on the basis of marital status otherwise. The issue is that they are restricting membership to a certain group. If your friend, not being a member of the group, tried to join it would be irrelevant if they were married or not, they would not be allowed to join because they are not a member of that group. Long term partners are not allowed because there is no legal connection between them.

Yes the government relies on the Murphy case. But my understanding of this case was that a married couple should not be at a disadvantage to an unmarried couple. I wasn't aware it also allowed for marraige to be put at an advantage though.

I'm not aware of the Muckley case.

Our man in Havana

The government use the same discriminatory practices in revenue. An unmarried couple cannot share tax credits. Fianna Fail justified this by claiming it was protecting the institution of marriage. I would disagree. I would consider it to undermine the institution of marriage by reducing it to a mere financially convenient contract.

Indeed, it was the main reason I got married as my then partner did not work so It was financially convenient for us to get married. Probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

234

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yes the government relies on the Murphy case. But my understanding of this case was that a married couple should not be at a disadvantage to an unmarried couple. I wasn't aware it also allowed for marraige to be put at an advantage though.

I'm not aware of the Muckley case.

Muckley clarified Murphy by stating that it was nto a question of putting people on a equal footing or inducing them not to marry; the test was whether the statutory measure amounted to an attack on marriage.

MagicSean

234 wrote: »

Muckley clarified Murphy by stating that it was nto a question of putting people on a equal footing or inducing them not to marry; the test was whether the statutory measure amounted to an attack on marriage.

So placing an unmarried couple on an equal footing as a married couple would not be contrary to either case?

Seanbeag1

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I would consider it to undermine the institution of marraige by reducing it to a mere financially convenient contract.

That's precisely what marriage is and has been for the enormous majority of its existence. The idea of romantic marriage is a relatively recent development. Marriage is a vehicle for the proper transfer of property and inheritance rights. Any other meaning ascribed to it is really a side act.

234

I don't think there has been a clear statment from the Supreme Court recently on that issue. An interesting comparison is the decision of the German Constitutional Court in the Lifetime Partnership Bill case where they found that a civil partnership for homosexual couples that effectively put them on the same footing as married couples was not an attack on the institution of marriage since it was only open to same-sex couples. If you adopted their approach, then as long as you clearly distinguished between marriage and any other form of relationship you could put them on an equal footing. The difficulty is that there would have to be some kind of legal link between the two people. In the case of long-term partners there is nothing to connect them.

MagicSean

234 wrote: »

I don't think there has been a clear statment from the Supreme Court recently on that issue. An interesting comparison is the decision of the German Constitutional Court in the Lifetime Partnership Bill case where they found that a civil partnership for homosexual couples that effectively put them on the same footing as married couples was not an attack on the institution of marriage since it was only open to same-sex couples. If you adopted their approach, then as long as you clearly distinguished between marriage and any other form of relationship you could put them on an equal footing. The difficulty is that there would have to be some kind of legal link between the two people. In the case of long-term partners there is nothing to connect them.

Nothing to connect them other than a joint mortgage or a child?

234

Exactly, anybody can enter into a joint mortgage, they don't have to be in relationship. On the issue of the child, if they are unmarried the father has absolutely no constitutional rights in respect of that child. The mother has custody and full family rights, the father gets nothing. Harsh, but that's how it is until the Orieachtas feels like doing something about it.
Marriage is a formalised process that requires certain steps be taken to bring it to an end, whether by a decree of nullity or a divorce. There is no such relationship with long-term couples even thought they are in almost exactly the same position viz-a-viz eachother. At most they would be cohabitees, giving them some rights in respect of eachother's property if the relationship ends.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote:

I got married

That was On her Majesty's Secret Service, wasn't it?

MagicSean

234 wrote: »

Exactly, anybody can enter into a joint mortgage, they don't have to be in relationship. On the issue of the child, if they are unmarried the father has absolutely no constitutional rights in respect of that child. The mother has custody and full family rights, the father gets nothing. Harsh, but that's how it is until the Orieachtas feels like doing something about it.
Marriage is a formalised process that requires certain steps be taken to bring it to an end, whether by a decree of nullity or a divorce. There is no such relationship with long-term couples even thought they are in almost exactly the same position viz-a-viz eachother. At most they would be cohabitees, giving them some rights in respect of eachother's property if the relationship ends.

Anyone can enter a joint mortgage, in the same way as anyone can get married. It's also much more difficult and complicated to get a mortgage than it is to get married. It is also much harder to get out of than a marraige.

234

Yes, but that's no justification for expanding a restricted class. If you are part of a club restricted to employees in a certain workplace it might be justifiable to extend membership to spouses; it would be patently ridiculous to extend it to somebody you were in a joint mortgage with as that could be a business partner, a stranger, anybody.

nuac

As Jo King says Credit Unions are formed to serve those with a common bond, e.g. employees in a particular firm or organisation such as Garda, Aer Lingus etc ( usally called industrial credit unions ) More usually formed by those who live or work in a particular geographical area - usually called community crredit unions.

A credit union may only lend to a member. If the proposed borrower is not entitled to be a member e.g. does not live or work in the common bond area Cu should not lend as there may be difficulties in enforcing the loan.

I haven't checked position re spouses. Credit Union boards rend to be conservative middle aged and would not be enthusiastic about same sex marriages and the like.

The great majority of Credit Unions have stayed out of the property madness, and are still able to lend for provident and productive purposs.

The member can always ask to meet the CU credit committee