Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

[WendyB]

Having been a Beagle for some time now, it seems to me that there are more and more cases being put forward for hardship. And rightly so, most of the time.

However, in view of recent hardship case successes, this led me to ponder (as you do) whether everyone who puts forward a case for hardship is really a hardship case, or simply skint?

I know that the "rules" for hardship contain loads of criteria and that if you meet them you can qualify, but does this necessarily mean that you should, just because you can, on a technicality?

Take me, for example. Me and OH both work full time. Never have any spare money. Need everything we get just to pay bills, mortgage, etc. No savings or rainy day money. BUT we manage. Just about. However, we have over 500 in charges over the past year or so. Regularly reschedule debts, i.e rob Peter to pay Paul. Have a bit of council tax arrears (not major). Three of the hardship criteria. Should I apply for it?

Does the fact that I work fulltime and am basically just skint, mean I am a less deserving case than someone who has lost their job, but has no debts, no arrears etc?

Its all relative. Some people have more income, but more outgoings, some people have considerably less income, but far less outgoings, so in effect are better off than those who earn more.

My thinking is that if everyone who qualifies by even the slenderest of threads puts a claim in for hardship, which the chances are will ultimately get turned down, then is this not clogging up the system and making it take longer for those in genuine need to get sorted. Likewise, if the bank turns you down, then you go to FOS route, then clogging up the FOs and making those who need it most wait longer?


Discuss.......

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

My personal opinion is that there are some hardship claims in which I believe that they have no case for Financial Hardship as laid out in the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges. You kinda get an eye for things and while it is difficult to necessarily be definitive on your first impression, I think some people have got a slightly lopsided interpretation of financial hardship.

[Amy]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

I think if you qualify as a hardship case then you should grab it with both hands.

If you saw an offer in the paper for £3k off a new car on a first come, first served basis would you not take that offer on the grounds that there are an awful lot more people worse off than you that could do with that cheap car and that you would be depriving them of it?

If you don't ask, you don't get. Look after yourself and your family because nobody else will.

[Sapphire]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

Having been a Beagle for some time now, it seems to me that there are more and more cases being put forward for hardship. And rightly so, most of the time.

However, in view of recent hardship case successes, this led me to ponder (as you do) whether everyone who puts forward a case for hardship is really a hardship case, or simply skint?

I know that the "rules" for hardship contain loads of criteria and that if you meet them you can qualify, but does this necessarily mean that you should, just because you can, on a technicality?

Take me, for example. Me and OH both work full time. Never have any spare money. Need everything we get just to pay bills, mortgage, etc. No savings or rainy day money. BUT we manage. Just about. However, we have over 500 in charges over the past year or so. Regularly reschedule debts, i.e rob Peter to pay Paul. Have a bit of council tax arrears (not major). Three of the hardship criteria. Should I apply for it?

Does the fact that I work fulltime and am basically just skint, mean I am a less deserving case than someone who has lost their job, but has no debts, no arrears etc?

Its all relative. Some people have more income, but more outgoings, some people have considerably less income, but far less outgoings, so in effect are better off than those who earn more.

My thinking is that if everyone who qualifies by even the slenderest of threads puts a claim in for hardship, which the chances are will ultimately get turned down, then is this not clogging up the system and making it take longer for those in genuine need to get sorted. Likewise, if the bank turns you down, then you go to FOS route, then clogging up the FOs and making those who need it most wait longer?


Discuss.......

I think that its simply a case of an individuals idea of hardship, some people may quite rightly say if you can't pay your mortgage/utility bills/general living expenses then that's hardship, whereas others might say 'I can't afford a packet of cigarettes, bottle of wine' is hardship, and another persons classification is 'I can't afford that holiday abroad this year' as hardship.

A bit like you Wendy we work lots of hours (own business) and although we earn very good money our debts are high (ok our own fault, we are victims of the good times some may say), the monthly payments are harsh and we play the juggling the finances game every month, does that make us qualify for hardship, no I think not, it just means we are skint at times.

Although we have been hit with the £500 charges in a year jobby, we cannot claim hardship, is that fair, probably not in my opinion, but we will abide by it and are waiting for the outcome of the OFT case, and in the meantime I am making sure all our spreadsheets are up to date ready to hit the banks with.

I do however think that anyone who gets money back from a hardship claim should be made to prove that they have paid the bills that they have used as proof to get the money and to show the proof that they have paid them.

Perhaps a rule should be made that a claimant should be able to make just the one claim of hardship per institution, that way it might keep the genuine hardship claims flowing a bit.

JMHO of course, and if anyone gets upset by what I've said then I am sorry, but as I say its my opinion.

[enaid]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

There is help on here if anyone wants to try for hardship and I don't think anyone would blame you for trying.
As for clogging up the system and handicapping the GENUINE cases, if you do not feel you are a GENUINE case then why bother in the first place?

[WendyB]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

Just to put this straight, I have no intention of trying for hardship. I don't think I'm a hardship case, I am just skint. I just used me as an example, to provoke a bit of discussion.

Like Sapphire says, everyone has their own ideas or what hardship is. My boss thinks he's hard up when he's down to the last 10k in his current account lol.

[Amy]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

But you are a hardship case - the FSA says so.

[WendyB]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

But my bank wouldn't, and I personally don't think I am, I am just broke. Can't see the point, and really can't be arsed, to go through the whole process of writing letters, making phone calls, etc, for them to tell me in about 2 months time what I already know. Seems a bit pointless really. So obviously i am not that hard up, or that desperate, or I would. That is my point.

It's like "why do you do it" Because I can. Doesn't mean I should though, does it?

And anyway, this thread is not meant to be about me, it was meant to be about whether people who think they are hardship are really, in the true meaning of hardship, or just simply not as well off as they'd like to be.

[Amethyst]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

The income and expenditure sheets is the most important part of a claim for hardship. You can have mortgage arrears but be massively overspending on Food, Clothes and Drink. You could be trying to maintain a lifestyle from when you had a job a couple years back that paid well now you are on £60 a week jobseekers. Its all relative. The Common financial statements the banks use to work out hardship have trigger figures in them set by the Money Advice Trust, theres minimum and maximum figures depending on your household size and ages.

If you are in hardship you know, its a choice of paying your rent or eating. I think in the main if you are in hardship you want to do everything you can to get out of it, if you are in hardship you don't complain that the bank want to move you to a basic account, or pay the refund directly off your arrears.

We can only give people our honest opinion based on experience on here, every situation is unique, and we have to look at the entire picture to give someone an idea if they are likely to be deemed in hardship. Its different for different banks too - which is wrong, but the way it is at the moment.

If someone is in hardship then we can help with the whole picture too, help sort out the debt problems and arrears and advise on moving money away from the banks and direct debit systems so its not at risk every month. Bank charges are not the solution to hardship but they can give a bit of breathing space while you try and sort yourself out.

When it comes down to it though, hardship or not, the banks are sitting on our money which they took from us unlawfully, and at some point they have to give it back.

Remember we aren't advising whether someones situation is hardship in our eyes, or their eyes, but in the banks & FOS's eyes as it is they who make the decision.

[Paule]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

This is my off the wall thinking on hardship claims at present, slighty off topic for the thread, but I didnt think it warranted its own thread.

Lately a lot more people seem to be getting payments from Hardship claims and in some cases a lot easier.
Is it because lately the cases have been more clear cut?
or the banks are genuinely helping now?
or are they in a better postion to mange the claims?

I think No to all

I believe they are using some of these 'hardship' cases as system tests for when they have to pay out 'en masse', making sure that their systems, which we know exist, are ready to start calculating the refunds correctly. At the moment it doesn't matter if the payment is incorrect as its not the full refund, its only partial. Any errors in the system will be known only to them and not to us, we will just think they got 75% of their claim back.

There was soemone on the forum who got more than they were claiming, was this due to a fault in their new system or had the claimant not claimed the correct amount.

Thats my view, but i never look at the obvious.

PKea

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

Sorry, but although I am aware of those who have real urgent need for a harship payout, I fully believe that you should try if you think you have a chance. At the end of the day its the FSA who decided to bring in this stupid one sided waiver and who have decided on the criteria which is still open to interpretation by the banks as to what they consider to fit the bill.

If anyone has clogged up the system its the FSA and the OFT as before the test case we were all putting in our claims and getting paid out.

OK we now have it agreed that the charges are able to be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR 1999 which is a result in itself, and it has been thrashed out by some of the main dude from the bar, something we could as LiP's probably never have done due to not having access to the info provided to the OFT and the courts by the banks.

But we all struggle and find it hard to make ends meet, some of us more than others agreed, but it should have been a two way waiver and if you need to do your grocery shopping on the credit card and pay a high rate of interest for the privilage only because you don't have the cash spare to be able to do it with your own money, or you need to pay for a MOT inlcuding parts and repairs plus a re-test that you hadn't budgeted for, or you get broken into and have to repair a pane of glass and replace a lock and hadn't expected to do so, all these things can leave you to be skint and therefore in financial hardship IMO.

If anything the waiver should be removed now and claims should be allowed to move forward.

The banks even started to set up specialist departments in anticipation of the inevitable. Lets stop dragging it out and get it sorted.

If you need the money and can show you meet even one of the criteria then go for it I say.

JMO

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

Lately a lot more people seem to be getting payments from Hardship claims and in some cases a lot easier.
Is it because lately the cases have been more clear cut?
or the banks are genuinely helping now?
or are they in a better postion to mange the claims?

I think No to all

I believe they are using some of these 'hardship' cases as system tests for when they have to pay out 'en masse', making sure that their systems, which we know exist, are ready to start calculating the refunds correctly. At the moment it doesn't matter if the payment is incorrect as its not the full refund, its only partial. Any errors in the system will be known only to them and not to us, we will just think they got 75% of their claim back.

Thats my view, but i never look at the obvious.

PKea

I personally think that you maybe right Pkea. However, the cynic in me is saying that perhaps Government money helps with the decision making process as does having to provide the FSA with hard facts and figures. Say we were to criticise RBS Group, for example, for being the worst ones because they treat people appallingly with regards to Hardship, they can trot out figures saying, we paid out x% of all claims for hardship which is higher than all other banks'(if that figure ever became available).
No bad news is ever that bad.

[EXC]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

This is my off the wall thinking on hardship claims at present, slighty off topic for the thread, but I didnt think it warranted its own thread.

Lately a lot more people seem to be getting payments from Hardship claims and in some cases a lot easier.
Is it because lately the cases have been more clear cut?
or the banks are genuinely helping now?
or are they in a better postion to mange the claims?

I think No to all

I believe they are using some of these 'hardship' cases as system tests for when they have to pay out 'en masse', making sure that their systems, which we know exist, are ready to start calculating the refunds correctly. At the moment it doesn't matter if the payment is incorrect as its not the full refund, its only partial. Any errors in the system will be known only to them and not to us, we will just think they got 75% of their claim back.

There was soemone on the forum who got more than they were claiming, was this due to a fault in their new system or had the claimant not claimed the correct amount.

Thats my view, but i never look at the obvious.

PKea

My feeling on the reasons why more hardship claims are successful now is simply because the FSA introduced the more defined hardship criterea. There was a distinct upturn in settlements ( albeit partial settlements) when it was introduced. I wouldn't mind betting the FSA has given the banks a quota of hardship cases to deal with.

[Tools]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

The FSA also insist that as part of the waiver the banks submit monthly reports detailing the number of charges complaints they have received, how many apply under t he hardship waiver terms, how many are accepted and paid out etc etc.

Ame has entered a freedom of information act request that has been accepted and the information (whatever they allow us to see) should be with her in the next few weeks.

The banks have to be seen as being proactive and complying with the waiver terms for fear of losing the right to use it.

[strugglingmum]

Re: Genuinely in Hardship or Just Skint? - Discuss

I think with my case I was struggling to get accepted for hardship until I became extremely persistant and constantly put my case accross to them. I spent a lot of time researching, finding out telephone numbers and going through the criteria for quallifying for hardship.

I dedicated every spare minute to it. I went through the 'criteria' and found not only did I qualify under one or two counts but under every single count. I am skint like most people but I've shopped on 'value' food for a good few years now, in fact I feed myself and 2 teenage boys on no more than £30 a week, I'll put one of my shopping lists up for you later to show you how it can be done :beagle:

My bills I pay and although I'm a single parent I've never sat at home and claimed benefits, I work for minimum wage and am entitled to small top ups to keep my income for my family in line with the guidelines that say I live on the least amount possible I can possibly live on.

I didnt get into debt until the bank charged my my first charge and then it snowballed, each one directly preventing me from paying essential bills, rent, gas, elec etc

As each charge was taken from my account I had corresponding communication from gas,elec etc requesting that amount that I had been charged.

My income/expenditure showed my income as being barely survivable, but just manageable, what it proved though was any change to that would mean I was living on nothing, literally not even having enough money some days to pay my sons bus fare to school let alone give them a sandwich, so they'd walk the 4 miles and not eat, seriously. The charges meant every penny I had was taken.

I knew I had charges in 2001/2002 and even to what amount, but when I put in my claim I didnt include these as of course they were 7/8 years old, and quite simply these did not cause me the hardship, but the recent ones did.

I was very lucky the bank could see (given that I gave clear cut proof) my hardship and very lucky they paid me more than I claimed.

I have paid every single bill I had, I have put away enough to pay my next gas and electric bills, I've got myself completely straight - but- I shouldn't and wouldn't have been it this/that position in the first place if the bank hadnt imposed the charges on me- it's literally as clear cut as that. Maybe that's the key?