20yrs with Nationwide and treated with insensitivity

chattychappy

Not disputing there is some kind of change in risk profile, but before everyone gets carried away on there's nothing she can do and what does she expect, the OP did write:

TitchyC wrote: »

They didnt ask or even look at the other money we have coming in, no questions, no assessment, simply BLOCKED.

Quite simply Nationwide are regulated by the FSA and the FSA require institutions to "treat customers fairly". There is some material here:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Doing/Regulated/tcf/index.shtml and Nationwide's behaviour does seem contrary to this.

Curt.

Yeah that is a good point.

If they didn't asses the merits at all, (but rather a generic response) that shows to me that it is irresponsible and perhaps indeed foul of the obligations they have under FSA's regulations.

chattychappy

I'm digressing a bit, but following the city debacle and the original Tory promise/threat (when in opposition) to abolish the FSA, there is some jockeying for position between the various regulators (or at least some of the personalities that head them up), ie the FSA, the SFO, SOCA, OFT, ombudsmen, City of London police, Bank of England, LSB etc etc.

Upshot is, they all want to play tough man with Margaret Cole at the FSA ahead right now. Just heard on the radio that Goldman Sachs have been fined £20M by the FSA for not telling them they were being investigated by the SEC in the US. That's quite something, IMHO - a fine for merely failing to report that you are being investigated. Of course they got fined by the SEC too when their investigation completed.

The FSA is big on institutions not having in place "systems and controls" - be it money laundering control, risk management, treating customers fairly, mis-selling, data protection etc. Hence all the proof of IDs, summary boxes, check lists, complaints procedures.

I don't think Nationwide will be quaking in their boots if the OP complains, but institutions aren't as free as they were and the various compliance departments know it. They dread the hassle of FSA investigations. The problem is the message hasn't filtered down the ranks to frontline staff who think they can just be snotty when someone like the OP walks in/phones up.

Curt.

The Goldman Sachs fine was almost certainl due to just the mere fact the SEC hit them so hard and it was seen as a comprable result by a counterparting body over the pond, its a mutally ammicable solution for all parties involved without further embarrassment for the company that provides most of the emloyees of the US treasury!

But i think most of the Tory bluster about cutting the regulations of financial over sight are just that: noise. When it comes to clamping down on the size of government, its usually all good and well to say it, but to close a government agency is very difficult. Same in the states, once you create one, to get rid of it is near impossible unfortunately.

The big picture mentality mainly came in after 9/11 to allow for the big things like money laundering, material support for terrorists, freezing of assets etc to be done by the IRS/ fed reserve, FSA etc with lightning fast speed. Mainly to be able to stop the money to terrorists and holding money in countries that do, and pre-emptively stop more attacks.

The rest of the day to day regulations was left to the institutions itself, and for the most part, it works. Far better than the over regulation like the comm re-investment act and stuff like which causes a capitulation of the system imo.

This may be a case where Nationwide run wild, but it doesn't destroy the system though. A re-appropriation of the Glass Stegall act may be the way to go to be able to stop huge banking institutions from forming and then lobbying government to cease regulating them perhaps?

Jacey53

I too have had dreadful experiences with Nationwide Credit Card Services - they are appalling.

Nationwide banking services (mortgage/loans etc are great, though.

I can't believe that they are the same business.