You are here

Almost 50% of bank officials have dealt with elder financial abuse

Published 15/06/2015

SHARE THIS

Almost 50% of bank officials have dealt with cases of suspected elder financial abuse according to findings published by Age Action and Ulster Bank to mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

Age Action | Almost 50% of bank officials have dealt with elder financial abuse
Photo via Aleah Phils/Flickr Creative Commons

There were more than 13,000 cases of elder abuse referred to the HSE up to the end of 2013. Financial abuse is the second most common form of abuse, accounting for more than one in five cases.

The organisation also published a number of case studies of elder financial abuse.

Justin Moran, Head of Advocacy and Communications at Age Action, said: “Every year, hundreds of older people are facing demands for money from family members, having their income withheld from them or finding their possessions taken.

“To make it worse, in the overwhelming majority of cases of elder abuse, the perpetrators are immediate family members.”

Age Action and Ulster Bank are working together to raise awareness of the issue of elder financial abuse and to identify ways or preventing it.

Age Action received funding through Ulster Bank’s Community Impact Fund in 2014 to develop an awareness campaign in order to help older people avoid becoming victims of financial abuse and fraud. 

Working with the HSE and other agencies concerned with this issue, Age Action held a half-day discussion forum on 11 June at Ulster Bank’s head office in Georges Quay.

The event brought together more than 100 people representing carers, health service professionals, regulators, debt agencies and older citizens to get to grips with the growing problem elder financial abuse.

Justin Moran continued: “It is those who are abusing older people, taking their money and their savings, who are responsible for elder abuse. We need to find ways of helping older people to avoid becoming victims and encouraging frontline staff in banks and other financial institutions to act if they suspect elder abuse.”

The survey asked 493 Ulster bank customer service staff about their experience of elder financial abuse. 45% of respondents had dealt with suspected elder financial abuse cases, almost all of whom had dealt with at least one case in the previous 12 months.

68% of the Bank’s respondents were familiar with elder financial abuse, rising to 75% among those with 10 years or more experience.

Nichola Priestley, Senior Fraud Specialist at Ulster Bank, said: “At Ulster Bank we are conscious of our responsibility to do everything we can to protect our customers. The elderly and vulnerable of our society are at particular risk of being targets for fraud and financial abuse. 

“We want our customers to be aware of what we do to protect them, and also help them to protect themselves. Training and awareness workshops play a big part of that also, and we are proud to have partnered with Age Action Ireland for this event.”

A separate survey was conducted among older people. 42% per cent of the 466 older people who participated in the survey were aware of elder financial abuse and 95% said that it was something all older people need to be educated about.

The HSE operates an information line for reporting cases of suspected elder abuse from Monday to Saturday, 8am to 8pm, at 1850 24 1850.

Age Action also runs an information line for anyone who might be concerned about elder abuse. It operates from Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm, at 01 475 6989.

Note to editors

Age Action’s work on elder financial abuse is funded by the Ulster Bank Community Impact Fund.

The surveys were carried out over April and May in print and online.

For more information contact Justin Moran, Head of Advocacy and Communications, Age Action,  on 087 968 2449 or 01-4756989

SHARE THIS

The new Bill is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.

According to Dr Nat O’Connor, Age Action’s Senior Policy Adviser: “Age Action strongly opposes the revival of the Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages). Bill 2024, which is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.”

“Across political parties, in unions and among older persons, we see support for ending the practice of forcing people out of work before they are ready, but the proposed Bill makes no meaningful progress toward that end. The aim set out in its title, to restrict certain mandatory retirement ages, betrays its lack of ambition. All it provides for is the establishment of a complex, formal procedure so that employees can make a written request to stay on past their contractual retirement age; a request which can still be denied by their employer. This is the sole ‘restriction’ the Bill would impose on mandatory retirement.”

“This is a weak and ineffective Bill which is unlikely to help most employees who are forced out of work against their will for the offence of reaching a certain birthday. There is no reason for such timid action when we have seen other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the United States abolish mandatory retirement entirely, in some cases decades ago. These countries have continued to enjoy well-functioning and productive labour markets and workplaces, showing that there is no foundation for the fears expressed by people who want to keep mandatory retirement.”

“Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If the State allows a form of discrimination to be practiced, it must set out clear justifications for the practice. However, the popular arguments in favour of mandatory retirement are all myths. There is no evidence that older persons are less able to contribute to a workplace, or that they cost more than they contribute, or that they prevent younger workers from gaining employment. In fact, research has demonstrated the many benefits older workers bring to workplaces, including institutional experience, mentoring, and soft skills like better stress management.”

“Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.”

Dr. O’Connor concluded: “The proposed Bill is an incomplete and inadequate response to the problem of mandatory retirement, and by virtue of its incompleteness, reinforces and legitimises the dangerous ageism on which mandatory retirement is founded. We want our new government to take strong and decisive action, rather than tinkering around the edges of a serious problem. The Bill needs to be abandoned in favour of legislation that really helps the workers who wish to remain in work for longer.”

Churn:
It is not reasonable to suggest that the abolition of mandatory retirement would create a large problem for companies, when the scale of churn in the labour market is already far higher. The Irish labour market experienced 12.8% churn in quarter 3 of 2024, meaning that 1 in 8 jobs were created, abolished or vacated during this period, which was 365,750 jobs (Central Statistics Office 2024).

Compared to this level of hiring and resignations, managing the relatively small number of older workers who may seek to work longer or whose productivity may fall in older age is a much smaller human resources management issue for companies.

CSO (2024) Labour Market Churn Q3 2024 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-lmc/labourmarketchurnq32024/

Age Action’s detailed policy paper outlining the case against mandatory retirement can be accessed here: https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/age_action_paper_abolish_mandatory_retirement.pdf