Natwest hardship claim 2nd rejection Help

LeeSouthEast

I know where you're coming from. During my debt freedom journey, I actually switched to roll-ups to free up more cash. The journey to getting debt free and quitting smoking don't go together! Bravo on the cut back though, that's quite a difference.

Now, before anyone else makes mention of the S word, back on topic.

natweststaffmember

sarah7610 wrote: »

I have mortgage arrears, (half of a monthly payment) which I am paying off each month on my normal monthly payment. I have told them all this but they don't want to budge. Our financial situation has got worse since I started all this as all my DD's have been returned which include my utility bills.
I am NOT getting involved in the argument over smoking(thank God you didn't say you had Sky cos they are quite anti Sky and reclaiming since that is somehow a crime these days, lol. Please don't say you go to church and give money in the collection cos that will the issue, pmsl).

Ok the nitty gritty is that the bank have on the mortgage arrears said no because you are now overpaying on the mortgage ie mortgage plus partial arrears so the situation on that front does not appear to be desparate.

How do you repay your utilities? Are you now paying by Giro and is the arrears also being paid off?
As for the comment from the non-smoker..............We don't drink, go out or buy clothes etc. We don't have holidays or trips out and haven't for a few years. The only time we do go out and socialise is when we go to work. If it was that easy to give up smoking I would have done it by now. We spend £2.56 a day on tobacco between the two of us.........That's £71.68 a month which is well within the Common Financial Statement guidelines.

Sarah, please please please please do not respond to people like the ones we have on here. If we have to go back to tobacco at a later point then so be it. Let's work out why the bank said no first of all and then you can tell Premier et al where to go, ok?

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Sarah, please please please please do not respond to people like the ones we have on here. If we have to go back to tobacco at a later point then so be it. Let's work out why the bank said no first of all and then you can tell Premier et al where to go, ok?

I hate to point out the obvious but:

1. You are one of the people that post on here. Are you saying the OP should ignore you too???

and

2. Read the OP again; it says why the bank said no

sarah7610 wrote:

...I have had a letter today saying that I still don't fit into their criteria as I over spend on tobacco ...

(Prior to that, earlier posts/threads by the OP suggest the bank hadn't received the request to consider hardship in the correct form (for whatever reason) ... and it was you who told the OP to write to the bank again after considering the contents of the Lending Code http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=30270143&postcount=9 )

IHopeSo

Premier wrote: »

I hate to point out the obvious but:

1. You are one of the people that post on here. Are you saying the OP should ignore you too???

and

2. Read the OP again; it says why the bank said no


(Prior to that, earlier posts/threads by the OP suggest the bank hadn't received the request to consider hardship in the correct form (for whatever reason) ... and it was you who told the OP to write to the bank again after considering the contents of the Lending Code http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=30270143&postcount=9 )

I'd just like to say how rude i find this, surely it's about the injustice of the banks criteria of hardship of which their definitely is! and the injustice of bank charges whilst in hardship, Not about if someone smokes or drinks! of which can be understandable when under stress and hardship, it seems to me that maybe Premier should get a job with the bank as they also like being judgmental, of those less fortunate,but lets face it the banks and the tabaco company's can make so much more money out of us!

IHopeSo

I am just a mother of 4 and have found this and cag invaluable, i have managed to win with natwest twice, second time being under hardship, i have found that you need to have priority arrears as natweststaffmember states, also if you are with cccs or managing your debts in this way they find you not in hardship,completely unjust i know! natwest have just written to me to say they find i am not in hardship anymore as i have kept my account in order! even though my partner and i still have not found work since being made redundant and have priority debt arrears!

confused90

Natwest and other banks use lack of "priority" arrears as a cop out but the lending code sets out what is to be considered indicitive of financial hardship in section 9 paragraphs 138 and 139 and it states;

138. Personal customers should be considered to be in financial difficulty when income is insufficient to cover reasonable
living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due. This may result from a change in lifestyle,
often accompanied by a fall in disposable income and/or increased expenditure, such as:

•

loss of employment;

•

disability;

•

serious illness;

•

relationship breakdown;

•

death of a partner;

•

starting a lower paid job;

•

parental/carer leave;

•

starting full-time education; and

•

imprisonment

139. Financial difficulties may become evident to a subscriber from one or more of the following events:

•

Items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;

•

Failing to meet loan repayments or other commitments;

•

Discontinuation of regular credits;

•

Notification of some form of insolvency or court proceedings;

•

Regular requests for increased borrowing or repeated rescheduling of debts;

•

Making frequent cash withdrawals on a credit card at a non-promotional rate of interest; and
• Repeatedly exceeding a credit card or overdraft limit without agreement.

Now all but one of the definitions in para; 139 apply to me, and i lost my job which qualifies me under the definitions of para; 138 but, my mortgage is upto date, now, does anyone know where in the lending code it refers to these "priority" arrears or where it states not having "priority" arrears means that even if the definitions of the lending code section 9 paragraphs 138 & 139 apply to you the lack of these "priority" arrears indicates that you are not in financial hardship?

I cant see anything about them myself......

natweststaffmember

"when income is insufficient to cover reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due."

Will any of the non priority debts lead to a loss of your home, your liberty or the loss of basic necessities?
The answer is no, they lead to CCJ's, they may lead to bankruptcy but the ultimate sanction is the issue.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/PlanYourWayOutOfDebt/DG_10013266
The above is a link to priority debts and the ultimate sanction.

sarah7610

I'm confused........I have arrears on my mortgage and a secured loan, we struggle from month to month and have to decide whether to eat or pay a bill each month so why do they not class us as "hardship"? I've sent proof and have just done another letter with copies of even more debts and arrears.
Why do they have to be so damn stubborn, after all, if it wasn't for their customers they wouldn't exist.
It's pretty obvious why they won the court hearing as they would end up paying so many people back their charges they would go under but for god sake, when people are struggling to live they need to get off their high horse and stop being so smug!!!

natweststaffmember

sarah7610 wrote: »

I'm confused........I have arrears on my mortgage and a secured loan, we struggle from month to month and have to decide whether to eat or pay a bill each month so why do they not class us as "hardship"? I've sent proof and have just done another letter with copies of even more debts and arrears.
Why do they have to be so damn stubborn, after all, if it wasn't for their customers they wouldn't exist.
It's pretty obvious why they won the court hearing as they would end up paying so many people back their charges they would go under but for god sake, when people are struggling to live they need to get off their high horse and stop being so smug!!!

Sarah, whilst I do accept you have arrears, in the earlier posts you have said you are paying normal mortgage payment plus percentage of arrears which means additional payments to the mortgage and although struggling to pay the secured loan, you are paying the secured loan.
The bank won the court case based on UTCCR 1999 6.2(b) which in the judgement was clearly a narrow point of law, the Supreme Court acknowledged that themselves.
Unfortunately, I can see how they can decline hardship CURRENTLY based on financial hardship. Have you looked at being able to decrease payments on the mortgage to give you more money for other bills? Have you discussed this with your mortgage provider?

confused90

natweststaffmember wrote: »

"when income is insufficient to cover reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due."

Will any of the non priority debts lead to a loss of your home, your liberty or the loss of basic necessities?
The answer is no, they lead to CCJ's, they may lead to bankruptcy but the ultimate sanction is the issue.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/PlanYourWayOutOfDebt/DG_10013266
The above is a link to priority debts and the ultimate sanction.

Natweststaffmember i think the above post shows that some of the bull poo that natwest filled your head with is still with you despite not working for them for a while.

Since when did a "reasonable living expense" directly translate to a debt which if not paid would lead to a loss of home, liberty or basic necesities, i can see how a "prority debt" would translate into that definition but that is the exact point i was making in my previous post, a "reasonable living expense" is not by definition a "priority debt" but banks, like natwest, choose to subsitute the words "reasonable living expense" in the lending code with "priority debt" and attempt to convince us that the two are the same, they are not.

Any bank will tell you you are not in financial hardship if you are paying your rent or mortgage and any other secured loans (based on my experience and the stories of other read on here) but i would argue that even though someone pays their mortgage that alone does not define a person who is in sound financial standing.

A reasonable living expense could include, food, clothing, gas, electric, mortgage, fuel costs to get to work, hire purchase costs especially if that HP is for a van or other vehicle you use for work purposes, buildings insurance if it is a condition of your mortgage that you have it.

yet if you pay your mortgage at all costs, even if that means you are left naked, without food, no gas or electric, unable to maintain payments on the vehicle you rely on for work or to pay fuel/travel costs to get to work your bank will likely say you are of fine financial standing and therefore not in hardship, it's a cop out because banks know that people will usually pay a mortgage or rent, in other words keep a roof over their heads, before paying out for anything else, including food and/or heating costs.

"Reasonable living expense" does not mean priority debt, not least because an expense itself is totally different by definition to a debt so they can not be resonably interpreted to mean the same thing.

And also, in typical brainwashed bank (ex) employee style you totally ignored the definition which follows "resonable living expense" in section nine, paragraph 138 of the lending code which states being "unable to meet financial commitments as they become due" is to be taken as indicitive of financial hardship, it does not say being unable to meet "priority" financial commitments just any financial comitment.