Are Nationwide treating their cutomers fairly?

RabbitMad

Nationwide has a duty to treat ALL of its customers fairly.

In December 2008 Nationwide penalised the majority of its members by ignoring the collar that was clearly documented in the mortgage Terms and Condition on its tracker mortgages. By doing this Nationwide is unfairly treating this small group of members more favourably than all of their other members.

The nationwide is owned by its members so therefore if you are a saver or hold another type of mortgage with them, then Nationwide are effectively taking money off you to give to this minority of members.

It is my assertion that Nationwide should provide a single lump sum payment to all its members that do not hold a tracker rate mortgage where the collar has been unnecessarily waiver. The value of this payment should be the average amount that Nationwide has given to the tracker rate mortgage holders. For example if the average Nationwide mortgage is £100,000 then Nationwide have effectively given their tracker customers £750 of the other members money.

If you are a nationwide member and feel likewise aggrieved at being down graded to a second class of citizen complain now and demand action.

gozomark

what are the stated T&C ?

RabbitMad

its quite clear in the contract that the collar exists - I had a tracker with a collar a while back and it was very clear.

Basically the nationwide has bowed to political presure and waived the collar and as such has had to drop its saving rates penalising the rest of its membership.

I suspect what the directors have done is actually illegal as they've given away the company's money without the owners (member) consent.

gozomark

don't think you've got a case - they could have just widened their spreads between their lending and savings rates instead.

Savings rates are determined by competition - what other banks offer. What they lend out at is irrelevant in terms of their savings rates offered

Milarky

RabbitMad wrote: »

In December 2008 Nationwide penalised the majority of its members by ignoring the collar that was clearly documented in the mortgage Terms and Condition on its tracker mortgages. By doing this Nationwide is unfairly treating this small group of members more favourably than all of their other members.

It's a 'commercial' decision to do this - informed by the thing that is really unfair - and that is blatant FSA suggestions (under overt political influence from the government) that collars are (or may be) 'unenforcible' terms. That's fine as far as it goes but it's happened previously in 2001- in relation to 'Base Rate Mortgages' where Nationwide simply gave back £90 million (I suppose about £10 each from all other members) to a group that had already benefited from fixed rate deals.

Anyway, when it suits the 'banks' (of which Nationwide is an honorary member) they will use the courts 'to decide' the rights and wrongs of a matter (oh, like banks charges - whether to allow the OFT to make regulations to make these fair) but on this occasion it's pressure to fall into line and not offend the government (plus commercial pressure not to be out of line with the other banks that had torn off their 'collar' arrangements) that has led the Nationwide to favour a smaller group over a larger one... once again!

...The thing is, the CEO isn't paid to be 'honest' is he? He's paid to keep his mouth shut and not rock the boat

RabbitMad

Milarky wrote: »

It's a 'commercial' decision to do this - informed by the thing that is really unfair - and that is blatant FSA suggestions (under overt political influence from the government) that collars are (or may be) 'unenforcible' terms. That's fine as far as it goes but it's happened previously in 2001- in relation to 'Base Rate Mortgages' where Nationwide simply gave back £90 million (I suppose about £10 each from all other members) to a group that had already benefited from fixed rate deals.

Anyway, when it suits the 'banks' (of which Nationwide is an honorary member) they will use the courts 'to decide' the rights and wrongs of a matter (oh, like banks charges - whether to allow the OFT to make regulations to make these fair) but on this occasion it's pressure to fall into line and not offend the government (plus commercial pressure not to be out of line with the other banks that had torn off their 'collar' arrangements) that has led the Nationwide to favour a smaller group over a larger one... once again!

...The thing is, the CEO isn't paid to be 'honest' is he? He's paid to keep his mouth shut and not rock the boat

I agree with you entirely - I was posting more out of frustration than anything else, however I have complained to Nationwide and will take it all the way to the ombudsman as I can and it will cost Nationwide money. If quite a few members do this it could prompt a rethink and start the fight back.

bigheadxx

RabbitMad wrote: »

Nationwide has a duty to treat ALL of its customers fairly.

In December 2008 Nationwide penalised the majority of its members by ignoring the collar that was clearly documented in the mortgage Terms and Condition on its tracker mortgages. By doing this Nationwide is unfairly treating this small group of members more favourably than all of their other members.

The nationwide is owned by its members so therefore if you are a saver or hold another type of mortgage with them, then Nationwide are effectively taking money off you to give to this minority of members.


It is my assertion that Nationwide should provide a single lump sum payment to all its members that do not hold a tracker rate mortgage where the collar has been unnecessarily waiver. The value of this payment should be the average amount that Nationwide has given to the tracker rate mortgage holders. For example if the average Nationwide mortgage is £100,000 then Nationwide have effectively given their tracker customers £750 of the other members money.

If you are a nationwide member and feel likewise aggrieved at being down graded to a second class of citizen complain now and demand action.

Nationwide Tracker mortgages are still collared at around 2% so there is less than 1% difference between what they are paying and what they would have paid had the collar been enforced at 2.86%.

Not sure where you get you £750 from.

mike_the_bike_2

Well i've voted with my feet..I now have the grand sum of £1 invested in Nationwide. All my Isa's, bonds, fixed rate, internet accounts etc have now been moved to institutions covered with the 50K guarantee by the fsa and offering far better interest rates than the NW

RabbitMad

bigheadxx wrote: »

Nationwide Tracker mortgages are still collared at around 2% so there is less than 1% difference between what they are paying and what they would have paid had the collar been enforced at 2.86%.

Not sure where you get you £750 from.

0.75% of £100,000 equals £750 per year while the rate stays low.

As you say 2.86 I assume you are tracking at .86% above the base rate. Therefore the lowest the mortgage should have gone to was 3.61% rather than 2.86% that it has gone to.

RabbitMad

mike_the_bike wrote: »

Well i've voted with my feet..I now have the grand sum of £1 invested in Nationwide. All my Isa's, bonds, fixed rate, internet accounts etc have now been moved to institutions covered with the 50K guarantee by the fsa and offering far better interest rates than the NW

I will too as soon as my 6.15% fixed rate isa matures.

cloud_dog

Have to admit to finding it a bit annoying, one group with the collar in their T's&C's are treated differently to theother group who also have it in their T's&C's - quite strange.

My understanding was that NW waived it for one group because the collar wasn't mentioned in the Key Facts doc but has not been waived for those whose mortgage application mentioned it. Apparently because it wasn't mentioned in the Key Facts couldn't enforce the collar under FSA rules. Thats my undertanding but, I could be wrong.

My issue with this is that surely doesn't this mean all their T's&C's need to be referred to or included in the Key Facts???