NATIONWIDE treats its members like dirt....

le_loup

Wendolin wrote: »

you'll always get a competitive interest rate

.... and you do. Look around and see how many accounts of a similar nature pay a similar rate. They said "competitive", not "the best".
Accept this as a fact and you can then move on, get a better rate, keep an eye on it and be happy again.

Oh, and no one's here is happy about this need to move money, it's just a fact of life and all the time you don't respond by moving your money the banks are rubbing their hands.

So stop moaning and spend your time helping your daughter find a better deal.

funkycat06

im fed up with their ridiculous charges

ed123_2

.....if you have these promises in writing (however they tend to use generalised terms with could mean anything) and use say the average returns of several banks compared to the nationwide return. I would put your complaint in writing to the chief executive.( if you mention that you may take you complaint to the financial omdusman they usually settle an agreed compensation amount as it costs banks/bsoc £400 for each case) After exhausting their complaints procedures you can then take your complaint to the financial ombudsman service.

Hungerdunger

Wendolin - I'm afraid I agree with the people who express the sentiment that you (or your daughter) really need to monitor savings, in the same way as you no doubt do with the prices in your local supermarkets or quotes for insurance renewal.

I don't always get things right, but just over two years ago my wife and I transferred our previous ISAs into Two-year fixed-rate ISAs with Nationwide offering 6.15%. On maturity they were transferred into Three-year fixed rate ISAs offering 4.15%, also with Nationwide. At the time these accounts were on offer they were both at or near the top of the Best Buy tables. I accept that possibily your daughter didn't want to commit to a fixed term savings account, but had she done so she could have been benefiting from these rates.

P.S. I have no connection with Nationwide other than as a saver, but I do get the feeling they come in for a lot of unjustified criticism over their rates and their business practices, when in reality they are probably no worse and no better overall than the other Building Societies.

opinions4u

Nationwide's 2% plus BofE commitment to their variable rate mortgage customers basically gave them no room to pay savers more competitive rates.

Had they done so, their business would have failed (which would have been more traumatic for savings members than a disappointing interest return).

Over time, Nationwide will be able to move away from their stupidly low mortgage rate. But until those borrowers move house, move lenders or switch deals there is going to be very little that can change.

Mutual or not, nice cuddly members club or not, savers should always seek out the best deal (mix of rate and service) for their circumstances. Those that don't care enough to do this can only expect a poor return.

roddydogs

Should have voted for de-mutualisation and a windfall when you had the chance 9 years ago., now youve got the worst of both worlds.

opinions4u

roddydogs wrote: »

Should have voted for de-mutualisation and a windfall when you had the chance 9 years ago., now youve got the worst of both worlds.

Yeah, well it worked out well for all those other building societies that demutualised.

Which ones are still independent entities?

premierfella

opinions4u wrote: »

Yeah, well it worked out well for all those other building societies that demutualised.

Which ones are still independent entities?

I think the point being made is probably that members would have at least been able to get the value they had IN the Society at the time OUT of the Society (whether they would have had a moral right to the value built up in the Society over generations is admittedly questionable).

Now members seem to have the worst of both worlds (significantly devalued Society; uncompetitive Society products - unless you have one of the favourable mortgage rates discussed above).

As to the independence of the Societies that became plcs, I think if you asked the question even back when they demutualised it would have been a very small minority who would have said the new plcs would remain independent - it was widely anticipated that they would be swallowed up (although I concede that failure, such as happened to Northern Rock, would not have been anticipated).

opinions4u

premierfella wrote: »

I think the point being made is probably that members would have at least been able to get the value they had IN the Society at the time OUT of the Society (whether they would have had a moral right to the value built up in the Society over generations is admittedly questionable).

And then lose it all again by holding the shares!

(I do, however, understand where you're coming from!).

Wendolin

You have to question the motives of those who are defending these bad practices, just because most financial bodies are doing it doesn't mean it is good practice. It wasn't so long ago they were at least forced to write to you when they changed interest rates. As others have said it is a right pain and a waste of our time having to frequently swap accounts. Lets face it the aim of manipulating interest rates is to try and give you a poor return by stealth and sadly we have to live with that. However I think the NW have gone too far this time with their specific promises made with this members bond.

We will see what replies we get from the NW/FOS in due course.

The good news is that my daughter had a much better return from an ISA in the Yorkshire BS which paid out 6 times the return given by the NW - and no, I have no idea how they managed such a high return.

Lessons to be learned:- A bond is not really a bond (unless its 007). They didn't really mean promises made in the bond to last for long even though the same bond is on sale several years later. "You'll always get a competitive interest rate because unlike banks we can give you a better return on your money" means nothing at all really. They gave too low an interest rate to some mortgage takers so they are entitled to get the money back from savers. Busy wives and mothers shouldn't trust anyone and get help!