Natwest hardship claim 2nd rejection Help

natweststaffmember

confused90 wrote: »

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.
The Bull Poo is actually from an Ombudsman who, whilst I had time on my hands looking for a job(as well as posting on the forums) I had discussions with in relation to financial hardship since the bank were IMHO making themselves priority debtors which was very odd to me. I didn't ever deal with Financial hardship cases in my time within the bank and I was a mere humble bank cashier.
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.
Priority debts leads to loss of basic necessities. For example, you don't have to take out that credit card(even if you are given the hard sell), you don't have to take out the loan(excluding HP for car you use for work cos that is priority debt), etc, etc, and worst case scenario could be Bankruptcy, CCJ etc,etc,.
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.
Unfortunately that is where refunding charges would go on.
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.
All of these are factored into reasonable living expenses but with regards to financial hardship it will be based on HOUSEHOLD I&E. The worst example I can produce is a millionaire giving his daughter an allowance per month and she incurs huge charges yet she does live at home, is she in financial hardship? I would argue the case that she is not.
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.
You haven't completely understood priority debts since Gas/Electricity and HP on care to drive to work IS classed as a priority debt. Furthermore, banks tend to exclude loan payments/credit card payments etc,etc, from their calculations but will include food, clothing. The issue I was talking about is specifically based on what would constitute a refund of charges, ie financial hardship is about priority debts and is about household income and expenditure so even if there are thousands of pounds of charges on the account over a long period if the household income is sufficient then it would be rejected.
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.

Look, the report today has stated that banks publish the way they deal with Financial hardship. Can I suggest that you contact the FOS technical advice desk via email and ask them how they judge financial hardship and/or speak with them with regards to how they deal with claims?
Unfortunately, for yourself I was not brainwashed by any financial institution, I never dealt with Financial hardship claims when I worked in the bank and I never deal with a single bank charges reclaim once the OFT test case was ongoing since bank processes changed late 2006/early 2007 which meant branches never dealt with them. I base advice on what I have been told direct from the FOS and NOT from RBS Group. As I said, by all means ASK the same questions I asked. To date, I am pretty good at what I do on financial hardship cases and I do enjoy successes albeit far and few between currently. You'll get similar responses to me but please read the Lending code section 9 in full please.

confused90

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Look, the report today has stated that banks publish the way they deal with Financial hardship. Can I suggest that you contact the FOS technical advice desk via email and ask them how they judge financial hardship and/or speak with them with regards to how they deal with claims?
Unfortunately, for yourself I was not brainwashed by any financial institution, I never dealt with Financial hardship claims when I worked in the bank and I never deal with a single bank charges reclaim once the OFT test case was ongoing since bank processes changed late 2006/early 2007 which meant branches never dealt with them. I base advice on what I have been told direct from the FOS and NOT from RBS Group. As I said, by all means ASK the same questions I asked. To date, I am pretty good at what I do on financial hardship cases and I do enjoy successes albeit far and few between currently. You'll get similar responses to me but please read the Lending code section 9 in full please.

natweststaffmember i apologise if i worded some of that other post as though i was taking a personal shot at you, i wasn't sometimes my sarcasm comes accross, well not as it was intended, you can't always portray a written comment in the way it is intended but my jibes about you being a brain washed ex employee were ment to be a tongue in cheek remark and not offensive.

it is interesting though that you countered my comment about what is a "reasonable living expense" by explaining why a "priority debt", (debt being the operative word) would/could lead to loss of home, basic necessities etc....... this is the comment i mean......

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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.
Priority debts leads to loss of basic necessities. For example, you don't have to take out that credit card(even if you are given the hard sell), you don't have to take out the loan(excluding HP for car you use for work cos that is priority debt), etc, etc, and worst case scenario could be Bankruptcy, CCJ etc,etc,..

i fully understand how a serious (priority) debt could lead to the above mentioned actions and how other less serious debts might not, what i do not agree with is that banks are basically saying that when the lending code says resonable living expense the people who wrote it actually ment to say "priority debt" and we are suppossed to all nod in acceptance....maybe i am wrong but my logical brain tells me that an expense (dictionary definition = money spent on something: the amount of money spent in order to buy or do something) can not logically or reasonably be expected to mean debt (dictionary definition=something owed: an amount of money, a service, or an item of property that is owed to somebody)

put simply an expense and a debt are two entirely different things.

Also you do not need to be in debt to not be affording reasonable living expenses, some immidiate examples which spring to mind are;

1. Utilities - you may be on pre payment meters for your gas and electricity, therefore you can not possibly get into debt but you may not be able to afford to top up your gas and electricity, does this therefore mean you are not in hardship if you are not in debt? even if you can't afford to heat your home?
2. food - if you can't afford to buy food you would not incur a debt but surely being unable to buy food is financial hardship?
3. fuel/travel expenses to work - again not being able to afford these would not put you in debt but if you can't afford to get to work then surely you must be in a poor financial standing?

debt, while often a consequence of hardship is not definitive of hardship.

also i have read all of section nine of the lending code several times in the course of my reclaiming process and to memory nowhere in section nine is the term "priority debt" used.