[access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
- From: "Colin Fowler" <col.fowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:17:36 +0100
Derek,
Further evidence of your ignorance...
Ask yourself why nobody is taking the bank to court? That is another
unfounded assumption, no one knows that that is not the case.
Ask yourself why no organisation is taking the bank to court? The
Disability Discrimination Act [DDA] 2005 does not allow for an organisation
to bring a claim under discrimination or for a failure to comply with a duty
to make a reasonable adjustmentm, it is a piece of legislation for use by an
individual.
It is because it's obvious the bank would win. This is nonsense, there is
no case law to support that.
Why is it obvious? Because the blind customer is not being put
at a disadvantage, and so far nobody has proven different. It has been
shown all the way throughout this thread that the consensus of opinion is
that the solution suggested by the banks is different to their proposals to
introduce ACD. You have never accepted the reason why the banks are
introducing ACD. May I suggest you concentrate your efforts on establishing
what the true reason behind the introduction of ACD is? I think you'll
discover, that it is because ACD in the banks opinion is more secure than
the present arrangement. The present arrangement that strangely enough you
and Steve are prepared to accept as a reasonable adjustment?
There is absolutely no corralation between face to face chip and pin in the
stores and the use of online transactions. Both chip and pin and chip and
signature use in stores has been proven to be flawed and susceptible to
fraud to a differing degree. Furthermore the option of allowing disabled
people to opt out of useing the PIN pad arrangement was more to do with a
'fit all' reasonable adjustment, and something that the banks were at first
wholly against.
I would say that the opt out exemption is better suited for those disabled
people, who, for reasons relating to dexterity, cognitive skill, and
learning disabilities, find it impossible to use the PIN pad, rather than
for those blind or visually impaired customers, who with a moments
familiarisation and guidance should be able to use the PIN Pad. Did you not
refer to useing a telephone as an analagy in your previous correspondence?
Once more, I'd suggest that this thread be laid to rest, you have your
intrenched opinions, regardless of common sense or the overwhelming facts
supported by others, and no one is expecting you to change.
Kind regards
Colin
Colin Fowler
Disability Consultant
Tel: 01582 483 283
Text/mobile: 07901 573 570
E mail:
col.fowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.social-model.org.uk
disability@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Hornby" <derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
> Colin said
> "You have your understanding of what is reasonable, I have mine, and the
> interpretation of which would stand in a court would be down to the
> ajudication of a district judge."
>
> Ask yourself why nobody is taking the bank to court?
> Ask yourself why no organisation is taking the bank to court?
>
> It is because it's obvious the bank would win.
> Why is it obvious? Because the blind customer is not being put
> at a disadvantage, and so far nobody has proven different.
>
> All that has been proven is that theb blind customer is being allowed to
> access a service in a different way to others,
> and that's it, no big deal.
> It is the bank, not the blind cutters, that take the greater risk
> just as they do by allowing the blind to opt-out of chip and PIN and
> use chip & and Signature.
>
> Do you feel chip and & signature should not be on offer to those that
> cannot use chip & PIN?
>
> So two issues:
>
> 1. Chip and PIN in the shops.
> Some people cannot use the key pads. The bank responds with:
> "ok you can carry on signing no need to use key pads"
> so customer gets a chip and signature card. The bank takes on the
> extra risk for this kind of Custer.
>
> 2. Chip and PIN at home.
> Some people cannot use the system. to bank says:
> "Ok you can carry on with the present system"
> Again the bank takes on the extra risk same as they do for
> the chip and signature customers.
>
> Regards,
> Derek
>
> e-mail: derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
>
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
