Warning: Nationwide not a "bank?!"

Fedz

They must've looked at the overall account holders usage & calculated the percentage of who had accounts & also who saved with them too & who had the account & simply used to use for free cash withdrawals abroad but, didn't also save with them. They're not stupid & in this day & age as all banks/building societies they're scrutinizing to streamline where possible.

As it's a current account it's more realistic to have a debit card & yes maybe keep the free usage abroad - that would make it kicking - but, in all honesty if you was running a building society & did the maths that added up to it been just used for money in (UK) > money out (abroad) & not many savers or members using it as their main bank account - would you continue IF it didn't make economical sense?

glider3560

roddydogs wrote: »

It does, as after a certain year you had to sign away you right to a windfall to charity

No. As long as you were a member before 1997, you could have closed/opened new accounts and the charity provision would not have applied. Providing you continuously hold an account, your membership is retained and no charity signaway is required.

davidgmmafan

"would you continue IF it didn't make economical sense?"

No I wouldn't but I wouldn't change it in a cack handed way which did not differentiate IN ANY WAY between loyal members who enjoyed the perk and savy people who did not. It would be very simple to have a criteria for this, but for whatever reason, they chose the current approach which I sincerly hopes bites them on the behind.

Milarky

Re. the Windfall provisions: well there were just under 5 million members when the bar came down about 13 years ago - and some of those will either have paid off their mortgages or died in the meantime. That probably leaves about 4 million unaffected by signaway. However this number is considerably short of a majority of the current (eligible to vote) membership (15 million?) let alone 75% - the number required to vote for a change of status - so as I've often ruminated in the past - it seems highly unlikely the provisions of the signaway would apply in the (unlikely) event that the board asked the members to vote for free shares. This was what happened at Standard Life - people opening £20 accounts were able to qualify for free shares even though a signaway had previously been brought in.

Also, Nationwide's approach to member consultation on status resembles that of Third Reich or the late Labour Govt - that once elected they weren't going to take the chance of giving the members any further say (it is now somehow not possible for members even to petition for a ballot - that's the real reason none has taken place for 12 years - not some kind of 'vote' of confidence in the management of Nationwide)

On the "we're not a bank, we're a building society" point of course they are a bank (as well as being a building society) in as much as they clear their own checks and provide full banking services.

EarthBoy

Milarky wrote: »

.. of course they are a bank (as well as being a building society) in as much as they clear their own checks ...

They don't clear checks. They clear cheques.

LongTermLurker

EarthBoy wrote: »

They don't clear checks. They clear cheques.

They do if they make a mistake and have to clear the check box

Smugglers

Thank you everyone for all these helpful thoughts about my original problem of getting a reference. It sounds as though I was just unlucky that day with the person I got - but she was so adamant, and refused to listen to all my arguments, that I gave up! Next time I shall go in armed with all your supporting information and refuse to take no for an answer. Really helpful to have your comments, thank you.

chriskross

LongTermLurker wrote: »

They do if they make a mistake and have to clear the check box

Or the tick box as we say in English ;-)

LongTermLurker

chriskross wrote: »

Or the tick box as we say in English ;-)

ah, you tick a tick box, but check a check box - depends which one their form says

However, you win - I've struggled all my life to argue against the Americanised bast'rdisation of the English language and got caught out myself

Bernice50

Not very happy with this bank...16yr old rec'd an 'unwanted' upgrade to a cashcard + account - previously just opened a cashcard only
I rang them and was informed by an enthusiastic person that he/she could now use the new card - was told in letter to cut up the existing one...to BUY IN SHOPS and ONLINE what he/she wanted if he/she had funds !!
I said we had only opened this account a couple of months ago and purely because it was a CASH only!! However it appears that there is another account they could have offered which is called CASHBUILDING - asked why he/she couldn't have been 'swapped' to this one and enthusiastic person became monotone....

NOT IMPRESSED NATIONWIDE - ENCOURAGING YOUNG STUDENTS TO DEVELOP POSSIBLE BAD SPENDING...HAVE ALWAYS PROMOTED SAVING AND BEING THRIFTY - FEEL TOTALLY UNDERMINED.:mad:

OF COURSE TEENAGER IN HOUSE IS VERY PLEASED AND CAN'T WAIT TO PURCHASE SOMETHING IN SHOPS AND ONLINE....