They said this… · Accessibility & adjustments

“We will speak only to the account holder, even though they authorised you.”

Misleading without context

Security and confidentiality matter, but a blanket refusal to deal with an authorised representative can be unreasonable, particularly where representation is needed because of disability or vulnerability.

Not sure which right applies? Check your situation →

Why this answer

What actually matters

  • Provide clear authority in the requested form.
  • Ask what identity check remains outstanding.
  • Limit authority if the account holder prefers.
  • Explain the barrier to unaided contact.

Important nuance

When the statement may have a point

  • Some decisions or disclosures may require direct confirmation.
  • Authority can be refused where there is a genuine safeguarding or fraud concern.

What you could say

Keep the response tied to the actual rule.

Evidence

What to have beside you

  • The barrier created by the ordinary process
  • The adjustment requested and why it would help
  • Relevant supporting information without disclosing more than necessary
  • The organisation’s response and any alternative offered

If they still refuse

Move the dispute forward.

  1. Describe the practical disadvantage and the adjustment needed rather than relying only on a diagnostic label.
  2. Ask the organisation to explain any refusal and what alternative it considered.
  3. Use the relevant complaint, ombudsman, regulator or legal route while preserving applicable limitation periods.

Read the full rules

Go deeper before escalating.

Primary guideRead the detailed ConsumerWise guidance.Reasonable adjustmentsRead the full guide.Making a strong complaintRead the full guide.Telecom vulnerable customersRead the full guide.

Official sources

Check the rules behind this statement.

Equality Act 2010, section 20legislation.gov.uk · checked 19 Sep 2026Equality Act 2010, section 29legislation.gov.uk · checked 19 Sep 2026