# Nationwide AGM on 21st July. Are you a satisfied customer?



## provencal

We joined Nationwide to get free cash withdrawals when abroad.

Now they have changed policy to give free travel insurance, which I don't want, and removed the free withdrawals, which I do. Many MHF members are Nationwide customers and there are two threads running currently because of Nationwide's change of policy. Are we a force to be reckoned with?

As Nationwide members, we have voting rights at the AGM, which is on 21st July. Members can vote by post or online to re-elect the 11 directors, none of whom has a competing candidate. You can also vote to approve their excessive remunerations.

I have expressed my disapproval of the new policy by voting against the election of all directors. I have also voted against the Ordinary Resolutions.

At last year's AGM, there was uproar about director's remuneration as reported in
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-1699810/Angry-members-jeer-Nationwide-at-AGM.html

This year Matin Lewis is involved as you can see in
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...24322f894d1fb6878eddeef4df8c&t=3258242&page=2

I think with support from MHF members, a significant effect could be achieved and Nationwide might be persuaded to listen to its members again.

How many of our members would prefer Nationwide to provide free cash withdrawals rather than free travel insurance? If you are a Nationwide member, please vote in the poll.


----------



## kaacee

I would vote yes on the proviso that flex account holders adhere to the same rules in relation to travel insurance...i.e. deposit the minimum amount on a monthly basis. Not as a lot previously did, open a flex account just prior to going abroad and then expect to use the facilties of withdrawing cash at no cost. In other words, playing the system.

It was this that led to the NW abandoning the scheme IMHO.

The few ruining for the many as per usual.

Keith


----------



## provencal

Hi Keith,

I would be delighted to have free cash withdrawal instead of insurance, which I qualify for but don't want because I am covered for the first 30 days on another "free" policy.

What I object to is Nationwide's treatment of main current account holders. I have tried to negotiate with them but their attitude is "those are the rules, if you don't like them, then ....".

They say they are "*Different* because we are 'Your Nationwide' And that means we listen and act on your views." but in fact they are just as bad as the banks.

Thanks for your response,

Brian


----------



## coppo

provencal said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> I would be delighted to have free cash withdrawal instead of insurance, which I qualify for but don't want because I am covered for the first 30 days on another "free" policy.
> 
> What I object to is Nationwide's treatment of main current account holders. I have tried to negotiate with them but their attitude is "those are the rules, if you don't like them, then ....".
> 
> They say they are "*Different* because we are 'Your Nationwide' And that means we listen and act on your views." but in fact they are just as bad as the banks.
> 
> Thanks for your response,
> 
> Brian


I agree with all your points Brian.
Nationwide could easily have put different policies in place to stop people taking advantage ie, You must have so many thousands in savings with us, you must put so much in per month, you must have been with us for a year to qualify etc.

Paul.


----------



## ed786

I also "joined" Nationwide for the benefits of the FlexAccount card in withdrawing cash abroad. It was not our main bank but I did pay in around £300 every month and put in a large amount of savings using both Nationwide accounts and associated ones such as The Cheshire BS. When they announced the change in terms, I complained through their Complaints Procedure to no avail. The free travel insurance was of no use to me as I am now in the over-65 age group which cannot benefit. As has been already mentioned, The Nationwide is just like banks which operate primarily for the benefit of the senior management and their policy of taking over struggling building societies is merely to increase the size of their business so that they can pay themselves even more money. Voting at the annual meeting will be about as effective as doing the same at the Caravan Club AGM. I have now cancelled my Nationwide accounts and taken out a Halifax Clarity Credit Card (Halifax is our main bank) which has been discussed in several MHF threads previously. I used it to withdraw euros on our recent 6-week trip to Italy and by paying off the debt at the end of the month by direct debit, I only paid just over £3 in interest charges and there are no charges when using the card for other purchases abroad.


----------



## rosalan

As did I.
We did use them at home as well. Moving to N&P for the same facilities but must have £5000 in account.
:roll:


----------



## CliveMott

They have a few bob of hours so we got the voting forms. I phoned them up and challenged them because they only listed people they wanted to be voted ON to the board and did not list anybody else standing. I was a bit deflated when told that no other candidates had put themselves forward. 
So next year COME ON LADS AND LASSIES. Lets at least have a contest!

C.


----------



## ardgour

They do seem to have changed over the past couple of years, not sure why. Sad because there are very few decent old fashioned financial institutions around. Hubby cut up his card months ago in disgust

Chris


----------



## Rapide561

*Nationwide*

I closed my Flex Account yesterday but maintained a £100 balance in a branch based membership savings account.

Nationwide was once the darling of the mutuals, but alas no more.

The N&P, soon to become part of the Yorkshire has the solution at present, but for how long?

Russell


----------



## kaacee

Please don't think I am siding with the bank on this one, like a lot of NW customers, I also complained bitterly at the treatment of loyal customers when they decided to drop free usage of debit cards.

I also suggested that they could differentiate between those playing the system and loyal customers, but they did not want to know...rules is rules...was the attitude.

I stop with them because even though they do now charge, they are still cheaper than some of their high street rivals and to be honest, I get excellent service form my local branch, which I didn't from my previous 2 banks namely, Halifax and Natwest.

Keith


----------



## provencal

Thanks to all who responded on this subject.

Despite several campaigns to register discontent by reducing the majorities, the voting results from the AGM were almost the same as last year.

This year: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/mediacentre/PressRelease_this.asp?ID=1762
Last year: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about_nationwide/agm/agmresults.htm

Nationwide is impregnable and I know how Canute must have felt.

Anyone had experience changing to Santander to get free overseas withdrawals?

Brian


----------



## kaacee

Brian, I would urge you not to change to Santander, they have the worst customer service record of all banking establishments, yes you may get a little sweetener initially, but from my past experience with them (A & L actually) they are a disaster at looking after both their customers interests and money.

Only my personal opinion of course but stick with the Nationwide, even though I fully understand your discontent.

Keith


----------



## provencal

Thanks for that Keith.

I am inclined to stick with Nationwide just for their excellent on-line banking facility. I download information on a weekly basis from Nationwide and Lloydstsb, whose website is very badly designed in comparison. To obtain similar information requires about twice as many keystrokes and a lot of scrolling.

I wonder if anyone has experience of Santander's on-line banking service. There is no easy way to find out without joining them, by which time it's too late.

Brian


----------



## JockandRita

provencal said:


> Thanks for that Keith.
> I am inclined to stick with Nationwide just for their excellent on-line banking facility. I download information on a weekly basis from Nationwide and Lloydstsb, whose website is very badly designed in comparison. To obtain similar information requires about twice as many keystrokes and a lot of scrolling.
> 
> I wonder if anyone has experience of Santander's on-line banking service. There is no easy way to find out without joining them, by which time it's too late.
> 
> Brian


Despite NW's considered disloyalty to it's existing customers, we too have decided to stay with them, having got a couple of quid in e-savings accounts. :wink: 
However, that decision was greatly influenced by the fact that we have been N & P customers for many years, and as you already know, they *"now" * provide free overseas transactions/withdrawals for Gold current account holders.

Cheers,

Jock.


----------



## tonyt

I'm very happy with my Santander no charge, no fee, overseas cash withdrawals - so far!


----------



## jackeen

*Nationwide AGM 21st July '11*

Yes, like a lot of members, I complained in Branch & was informed that it cost £50 to issue a card to each member & that 1,000,000 ? members were depositing just enough spending money in the Bank for their annual 2wks. holiday. So Nationwide decided to start charging on Debit cards for overseas withdrawals. All purchases on their Credit Cards were still charge free.
Jackeen


----------



## Levvo001

kaacee said:


> I would vote yes on the proviso that flex account holders adhere to the same rules in relation to travel insurance...i.e. deposit the minimum amount on a monthly basis. Not as a lot previously did, open a flex account just prior to going abroad and then expect to use the facilties of withdrawing cash at no cost. In other words, playing the system.
> 
> It was this that led to the NW abandoning the scheme IMHO.
> 
> The few ruining for the many as per usual.
> 
> Keith


Speaking as an ex Nationwide employee, a saver, and a borrower, this is exactly right. At one time, Nationwide would happily accept customers who played the system, because it was seen as an inevitable consequence of taking the standpoint of being "the consumer's friend". You may recall their major (and successful) role in a campaign a few years back over cashpoint withdrawal charges.

However, the organisation has most definitely changed over the last 3-4 years, and profitability has become the watchword. NW needs to be more profitable to support its core business of savings and mortgages, where every other company under the sun wants a piece of the action - including all the supermarkets etc. Providing "free" services doesn't wash anymore. Not that it was ever free, of course.

Like it or not, providing a card and free overseas withdrawals always cost NW a lot of money. Just because they didn't charge their customer doesn't mean that NW didn't have to pay the transaction charges levied by the overseas bank, some of which are very high and completely outside NW's control. The upshot of that being that the cost would have to be passed on somewhere else - in lower interest rates to savers, for example.

Hence the members who didn't use the free withdrawal facility were paying for those that did. Is that fair? Well maybe it is if the members using the facility were also buying other products, thus adding to the Society's overall income, but the reality was that many people were only using the account for that one service, and only putting in enough money for their expected holiday spend.

I see many comments on this thread that confirm I am right - "it's not our main account" etc. Fine, you are fully entitled to choose where you want to bank. But don't expect me to subsidise your holidays.


----------



## coppo

Levvo001 said:


> kaacee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would vote yes on the proviso that flex account holders adhere to the same rules in relation to travel insurance...i.e. deposit the minimum amount on a monthly basis. Not as a lot previously did, open a flex account just prior to going abroad and then expect to use the facilties of withdrawing cash at no cost. In other words, playing the system.
> 
> It was this that led to the NW abandoning the scheme IMHO.
> 
> The few ruining for the many as per usual.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as an ex Nationwide employee, a saver, and a borrower, this is exactly right. At one time, Nationwide would happily accept customers who played the system, because it was seen as an inevitable consequence of taking the standpoint of being "the consumer's friend". You may recall their major (and successful) role in a campaign a few years back over cashpoint withdrawal charges.
> 
> However, the organisation has most definitely changed over the last 3-4 years, and profitability has become the watchword. NW needs to be more profitable to support its core business of savings and mortgages, where every other company under the sun wants a piece of the action - including all the supermarkets etc. Providing "free" services doesn't wash anymore. Not that it was ever free, of course.
> 
> Like it or not, providing a card and free overseas withdrawals always cost NW a lot of money. Just because they didn't charge their customer doesn't mean that NW didn't have to pay the transaction charges levied by the overseas bank, some of which are very high and completely outside NW's control. The upshot of that being that the cost would have to be passed on somewhere else - in lower interest rates to savers, for example.
> 
> Hence the members who didn't use the free withdrawal facility were paying for those that did. Is that fair? Well maybe it is if the members using the facility were also buying other products, thus adding to the Society's overall income, but the reality was that many people were only using the account for that one service, and only putting in enough money for their expected holiday spend.
> 
> I see many comments on this thread that confirm I am right - "it's not our main account" etc. Fine, you are fully entitled to choose where you want to bank. But don't expect me to subsidise your holidays.
Click to expand...

Yes but as i explained earlier in this thread, NW could have put rules in place to stop people doing this. See my post for examples of what they could have done. Now instead they have shot themselves in the foot with many people closing accounts etc, me included.

Paul.


----------



## Levvo001

coppo said:


> Levvo001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaacee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would vote yes on the proviso that flex account holders adhere to the same rules in relation to travel insurance...i.e. deposit the minimum amount on a monthly basis. Not as a lot previously did, open a flex account just prior to going abroad and then expect to use the facilties of withdrawing cash at no cost. In other words, playing the system.
> 
> It was this that led to the NW abandoning the scheme IMHO.
> 
> The few ruining for the many as per usual.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as an ex Nationwide employee, a saver, and a borrower, this is exactly right. At one time, Nationwide would happily accept customers who played the system, because it was seen as an inevitable consequence of taking the standpoint of being "the consumer's friend". You may recall their major (and successful) role in a campaign a few years back over cashpoint withdrawal charges.
> 
> However, the organisation has most definitely changed over the last 3-4 years, and profitability has become the watchword. NW needs to be more profitable to support its core business of savings and mortgages, where every other company under the sun wants a piece of the action - including all the supermarkets etc. Providing "free" services doesn't wash anymore. Not that it was ever free, of course.
> 
> Like it or not, providing a card and free overseas withdrawals always cost NW a lot of money. Just because they didn't charge their customer doesn't mean that NW didn't have to pay the transaction charges levied by the overseas bank, some of which are very high and completely outside NW's control. The upshot of that being that the cost would have to be passed on somewhere else - in lower interest rates to savers, for example.
> 
> Hence the members who didn't use the free withdrawal facility were paying for those that did. Is that fair? Well maybe it is if the members using the facility were also buying other products, thus adding to the Society's overall income, but the reality was that many people were only using the account for that one service, and only putting in enough money for their expected holiday spend.
> 
> I see many comments on this thread that confirm I am right - "it's not our main account" etc. Fine, you are fully entitled to choose where you want to bank. But don't expect me to subsidise your holidays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes but as i explained earlier in this thread, NW could have put rules in place to stop people doing this. See my post for examples of what they could have done. Now instead they have shot themselves in the foot with many people closing accounts etc, me included.
> 
> Paul.
Click to expand...

Fair enough point Paul, they could have.

As I said, I am an ex employee, and it would be fair to say I never agreed with all their policy decisions on lots of things...even though I am only lucky enough to be a member of the MH community because they chose to dispense with my services! I was always outspoken if I disagreed and continue to do so now as an "ordinary" member. Perhaps why I no longer work there...

I worked at NW for almost 30 years, including during the height of the carpetbagger period when most of the building societies converted, we were resisting, and have done till now. Horrible period, we were inundated with people who only wanted to open accounts in the hope of a quick killing on conversion. None were interested in what the Society stood for, it's morals and ethics. But they didn't get their way. Hence the society is a far stronger organisation than many of its former competitors. Giving services away to people who only want to take advantage won't maintain that strength. That experience also helped cement the view of both management and staff that their way was the right way forward. Maybe it was, maybe not - but it is a strong belief in most quarters, and means that anything that threatens that status is seen as a bad thing needing to be dealt with.

So on this issue I don't really feel they had much choice. The service was introduced to provide an added benefit for existing members who were already using Flexaccounts. What then happened was lots of people opening new accounts (you only needed £1) with the express purpose of taking advantage of this service, never having any intention of using the account fully. Large cost implication as I said.

If they had introduced a load of rules to prevent this, all that would have happened would be to alienate the "good" customers, and not "convert" the newcomers. They would simply have left as this thread shows would be the case. Just like the carpetbaggers - didn't get their own way, don't want to play any more. Sadly, that probably means a few of the committed, full customers have decided to leave too - but I doubt if it would be many. And I can imagine the case load in the complaints department too...more cost implications.


----------



## coppo

Levvo001 said:


> coppo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levvo001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaacee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would vote yes on the proviso that flex account holders adhere to the same rules in relation to travel insurance...i.e. deposit the minimum amount on a monthly basis. Not as a lot previously did, open a flex account just prior to going abroad and then expect to use the facilties of withdrawing cash at no cost. In other words, playing the system.
> 
> It was this that led to the NW abandoning the scheme IMHO.
> 
> The few ruining for the many as per usual.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as an ex Nationwide employee, a saver, and a borrower, this is exactly right. At one time, Nationwide would happily accept customers who played the system, because it was seen as an inevitable consequence of taking the standpoint of being "the consumer's friend". You may recall their major (and successful) role in a campaign a few years back over cashpoint withdrawal charges.
> 
> However, the organisation has most definitely changed over the last 3-4 years, and profitability has become the watchword. NW needs to be more profitable to support its core business of savings and mortgages, where every other company under the sun wants a piece of the action - including all the supermarkets etc. Providing "free" services doesn't wash anymore. Not that it was ever free, of course.
> 
> Like it or not, providing a card and free overseas withdrawals always cost NW a lot of money. Just because they didn't charge their customer doesn't mean that NW didn't have to pay the transaction charges levied by the overseas bank, some of which are very high and completely outside NW's control. The upshot of that being that the cost would have to be passed on somewhere else - in lower interest rates to savers, for example.
> 
> Hence the members who didn't use the free withdrawal facility were paying for those that did. Is that fair? Well maybe it is if the members using the facility were also buying other products, thus adding to the Society's overall income, but the reality was that many people were only using the account for that one service, and only putting in enough money for their expected holiday spend.
> 
> I see many comments on this thread that confirm I am right - "it's not our main account" etc. Fine, you are fully entitled to choose where you want to bank. But don't expect me to subsidise your holidays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes but as i explained earlier in this thread, NW could have put rules in place to stop people doing this. See my post for examples of what they could have done. Now instead they have shot themselves in the foot with many people closing accounts etc, me included.
> 
> Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough point Paul, they could have.
> 
> As I said, I am an ex employee, and it would be fair to say I never agreed with all their policy decisions on lots of things...even though I am only lucky enough to be a member of the MH community because they chose to dispense with my services! I was always outspoken if I disagreed and continue to do so now as an "ordinary" member. Perhaps why I no longer work there...
> 
> I worked at NW for almost 30 years, including during the height of the carpetbagger period when most of the building societies converted, we were resisting, and have done till now. Horrible period, we were inundated with people who only wanted to open accounts in the hope of a quick killing on conversion. None were interested in what the Society stood for, it's morals and ethics. But they didn't get their way. Hence the society is a far stronger organisation than many of its former competitors. Giving services away to people who only want to take advantage won't maintain that strength. That experience also helped cement the view of both management and staff that their way was the right way forward. Maybe it was, maybe not - but it is a strong belief in most quarters, and means that anything that threatens that status is seen as a bad thing needing to be dealt with.
> 
> So on this issue I don't really feel they had much choice. The service was introduced to provide an added benefit for existing members who were already using Flexaccounts. What then happened was lots of people opening new accounts (you only needed £1) with the express purpose of taking advantage of this service, never having any intention of using the account fully. Large cost implication as I said.
> 
> If they had introduced a load of rules to prevent this, all that would have happened would be to alienate the "good" customers, and not "convert" the newcomers. They would simply have left as this thread shows would be the case. Just like the carpetbaggers - didn't get their own way, don't want to play any more. Sadly, that probably means a few of the committed, full customers have decided to leave too - but I doubt if it would be many. And I can imagine the case load in the complaints department too...more cost implications.
Click to expand...

Yes also some good points you have made too.

Paul.


----------

