Are Nationwide treating their cutomers fairly?

cos69

Nationwide have been one of the leaders in the stampede to penalise savers and as already mentioned by others in this thread - Nationwide no longer offer competitive rates to savers. I have also moved some of my savings elsewhere.

Just waiting for the Nationwide AGM on 16th July when we get to vote on the election / re-election of directors and their remuneration. As far as I am concerned they no longer abide by their claim that they are a society run for the benefit of its members so time to change the directors
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about_nationwide/agm/

Stewster

cloud_dog wrote: »

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???

I think that was the Halifax that were told that and not Nationwide.

Stewster

All this about why should one group of borrowers unfairly benefit over others is making me feel quite angry. I signed up to a tracker mortgage and have benefited from the collar only being enforced at 2%. The last 3 rate cuts have not been passed onto any tracker mortgages whereas those on the society's SVR have received the full 1.5% cut ! In fact it is now myself and others on the Nationwide trackers that are now being penalised - Halifax and all other lenders operating trackers have continued to pass on rate cuts to their customers.

I signed up for the tracker in the full knowledge that rates can go UP as well as down. If I had been caught out and rates had gone up that would have been my lookout. You wouldn't have found me moaning about unfairly subsidising other borrowers !

cloud_dog

Stewster wrote: »

All this about why should one group of borrowers unfairly benefit over others is making me feel quite angry. I signed up to a tracker mortgage and have benefited from the collar only being enforced at 2%. The last 3 rate cuts have not been passed onto any tracker mortgages whereas those on the society's SVR have received the full 1.5% cut ! In fact it is now myself and others on the Nationwide trackers that are now being penalised - Halifax and all other lenders operating trackers have continued to pass on rate cuts to their customers.

I signed up for the tracker in the full knowledge that rates can go UP as well as down. If I had been caught out and rates had gone up that would have been my lookout. You wouldn't have found me moaning about unfairly subsidising other borrowers !

Am a little confussed by your post. I assume those on the SVR do not have a collar in their T&C's and therefore it is only right for NW (or whoever) to continue to lower the SVR as IR come down.

I have no issue with NW imposing the collar, or even imposing it at the lower level, after all its in the T&C's and thats what I signed up to.

My annoyance is in the fact that two sets of people both have the collar in their T&C's and yet for one set the lower collar is not being imposed. Surely if its in the T&C's thats it -well apparently not.

RabbitMad

Stewster wrote: »

All this about why should one group of borrowers unfairly benefit over others is making me feel quite angry. I signed up to a tracker mortgage and have benefited from the collar only being enforced at 2%. The last 3 rate cuts have not been passed onto any tracker mortgages whereas those on the society's SVR have received the full 1.5% cut ! In fact it is now myself and others on the Nationwide trackers that are now being penalised - Halifax and all other lenders operating trackers have continued to pass on rate cuts to their customers.

I signed up for the tracker in the full knowledge that rates can go UP as well as down. If I had been caught out and rates had gone up that would have been my lookout. You wouldn't have found me moaning about unfairly subsidising other borrowers !

But its in the T's&C's of all mortgages that once your deal ends you go onto the SVR which is guaranteed never to be more than 2% above the base rate (At one point it was only 1% above the base rate)

You are not being penalised, you are being subsidised (if I am correct that the collar was clearly in your T's&C's). Those on the SVR are just lucky.

If you think you are being penalised you are lucky you didn't fix last June like myself at 5.75%

Robert_Sterling_3

I can see this turning into another Scarborough and Skipton saga.

Milarky

RabbitMad wrote: »

But its in the T's&C's of all mortgages that once your deal ends you go onto the SVR which is guaranteed never to be more than 2% above the base rate (At one point it was only 1% above the base rate)

In what sense is it 'guaranteed' if they were able to change it from 1% to 2% (just applicable at a given guaranteed difference when the particular fixed rate mortgage was taken out??)

Stewster

RabbitMad wrote: »

But its in the T's&C's of all mortgages that once your deal ends you go onto the SVR which is guaranteed never to be more than 2% above the base rate (At one point it was only 1% above the base rate)

You are not being penalised, you are being subsidised (if I am correct that the collar was clearly in your T's&C's). Those on the SVR are just lucky.

If you think you are being penalised you are lucky you didn't fix last June like myself at 5.75%

RabbitMad - I don't think I am being penalised at all. It was your original posting that claimed that those on the SVR and other types of mortages plus savers were being penalised by subsidising those on a tracker. I was trying to say that if you thought you were being penalised then so must I - just a different perspective.

If Nationwide is "bowing to political pressure" as you stated earlier, how come they are now enforcing the collar when every other lender is not ? Surely the political pressure on Nationwide would now be unbearable as they are one of the largest mortage lenders in the country ?

I am also a saver with nationwide for your information (these outnumber borrowers by a factor of 10 to 1) so if anyone is giving money to tracker customers then I have only taken back through my mortgage what I have lost from my savings through their lousy interest rates ?

As you fixed at 5.75% last summer that is very unfortunate on your part but does not give you grounds to complain in the way you are. 18 months ago if you had the fixed rate you do now (that was possible back then) then you would have been in the same position as those on tracker mortgages now. Its swings and roundabouts, you win some and as in your case you are unfortunately losing this one. At any one time there will be customers benefiting from interest rate cuts or rises and there will be people loosing out.

RabbitMad

Milarky wrote: »

In what sense is it 'guaranteed' if they were able to change it from 1% to 2% (just applicable at a given guaranteed difference when the particular fixed rate mortgage was taken out??)

The guarantee has always been that the SVR will never be more than 2% above the base rate. At one point the SVR was only 1% above the base rate, but at that time the guarantee was still that it wouln't be more than 2% above the base rate. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Stewster wrote:

RabbitMad - I don't think I am being penalised at all. It was your original posting that claimed that those on the SVR and other types of mortages plus savers were being penalised by subsidising those on a tracker. I was trying to say that if you thought you were being penalised then so must I - just a different perspective.

I appreciate your comments but infact all other mortgage customers are being held to their T's&C's, its really the saver / current account holders that are being shafted of which I am one.

Stewster wrote:

If Nationwide is "bowing to political pressure" as you stated earlier, how come they are now enforcing the collar when every other lender is not ? Surely the political pressure on Nationwide would now be unbearable as they are one of the largest mortage lenders in the country ?

The political presure is off a bit as Savers are starting to feel aggrieved and there are a heck of a lot more savers. And lots of lenders have enforced their collar especially the building societies which is all I care about really. How a bank runs its opperations isn't my concern unless I'm a shareholder.

Stewster wrote:

As you fixed at 5.75% last summer that is very unfortunate on your part but does not give you grounds to complain in the way you are. 18 months ago if you had the fixed rate you do now (that was possible back then) then you would have been in the same position as those on tracker mortgages now. Its swings and roundabouts, you win some and as in your case you are unfortunately losing this one. At any one time there will be customers benefiting from interest rate cuts or rises and there will be people loosing out.

I disagree with you here because those on a tracker now find themselves (through no fault of their own) in a better situation than they should have been. 18 months ago I was sitting pretty having snatched a 4.5% fixed deal just as rates started rising but nobody was subsiding me as that was the competivie deal at the time. The provider didn't turn round to me and say - you know you fixed at 4.5%, why don't we let you make that 4%?

I know that a lot of people might disagree with me but I don't think what nationwide have done is fair, however if they re-impossed the collar would that be fair? probably not so what is the solution to this whole affair. I think it is for nationwide to dip into their reserves and give everybody a bit of cash. It would boost the economy.

Robert_Sterling wrote:

I can see this turning into another Scarborough and Skipton saga.

I don't know what that was. Care to give me a brief 2,500 word synopsis?;)

john_s_2

RabbitMad wrote: »

If you think you are being penalised you are lucky you didn't fix last June like myself at 5.75%

5.75%! What I'd give to have fixed at 5.75% last June. I fixed at 6.05% !!

(Sorry, couldn't resist it ;-)