Should I try for hardship or use a solicitor?

parisared

thanks for everybodys help, i'll send a letter. I'll send a letter to Abbey.

proeleche

You're welcome! Good luck!

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Only one in four people claiming hardship are successful in having their hardship status upheld.

As for ''Give it a go and see what they say and if they don't pay out -they will at least have a record of your claim'', if you had the capacity to actually read the very first sentence of the OP's initial post you'd know he already had a claim in, invalidating your advice.

You are incrediblely rude! As I believe I said to you before, keep your curt comments to yourself.

I'm sure you're statistics are more than accurate but here is no harm in trying to hurry things a long a bit.

ally1d

i`m doing the same and claiming hardship from natwest, if they say no will my case still keeps its place in the que with the courts or be kicked out completely

Orford

ally1d wrote: »

i`m doing the same and claiming hardship from natwest, if they say no will my case still keeps its place in the que with the courts or be kicked out completely

Hardship decision is with Natwest and nothing to do with the courts.

proeleche

ally1d wrote: »

i`m doing the same and claiming hardship from natwest, if they say no will my case still keeps its place in the que with the courts or be kicked out completely

They will continue to have a record of your claim and when they eventually have to pay everyone back, you would be one of them.

Nathan_Spleen

proeleche wrote: »

You are incrediblely rude! As I believe I said to you before, keep your curt comments to yourself.
.

With respect, if I see inaccurate advice based on not bothering to read what the OP has clearly stated, I'll post accordingly, as I see fit.

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

With respect, if I see inaccurate advice based on not bothering to read what the OP has clearly stated, I'll post accordingly, as I see fit.

I apologise if I skimmed and missed the part where the person said they had a claim on hold.

However, you did say that I couldn't read and while saying your claim will be put in the queue may have been techincally wrong in this person's situation [saying as they were already in the que] - writing and citing hardship would mean their situation would be reviewed and at least considered again...Someone who hasn't put in a previous claim, would be considered and possibly awarded if they are one of the lukcy 1 in 4 you mentioned beforehand or put in the queue - so to say I gave completely inaccurate advice is unfair.

Furthermore, your inital comment to the person wasn't helpful or informative I would even regard it as advice - just haughty and rude - your snipe about the solicitor I found to be out of line.

With respect.

Nathan_Spleen

proeleche wrote: »

Furthermore, your inital comment to the person wasn't helpful or informative I would even regard it as advice - just haughty and rude With respect.

I see. In that case I really must try harder to emulate your ''helpful or imformative'' posts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=21065169&highlight=#post21065169

''Ignorance. People make mistakes. Keep your rude comments to yourself.

'Serious Money Saving Fan' - ha! ''

The fact is that based on the albeit limited information provided by the OP he doesn't stand an earthly. By any measure he is not in financial difficulty and therefore shouldn't be claiming hardship yet you encourage him to do citing that there is ''no harm in trying'' but I disagree.

I know that some banks employ just a single person - in one case part time - to deal with hardship claims and spurious claims do nothing but delay the processing of claims of those who are genuinely in desperate need.

nykied

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

The fact is that based on the albeit limited information provided by the OP he doesn't stand an earthly.

'He' seems to be female. I thought I'd point that out as facts seem to be important in this slanging match