Nationwide Flexclusive ISA - 4.25%, instant access

veryintrigued

le_loup wrote: »

I do hope you don't mind me saying that your comment is verging on the ridiculous? If you do mind, tough.
The poster, as are others, is trying to get a competitive interest rate on a cash ISA entirely within the terms and conditions of an account. Many people are succeeding; we know of one that is having a dispute.
There is absolutely no one compelling you to participate and, if you're not, what on earth has it got to do with you?

I dont mind in the slightest.

I havent scrolled back up but were you the poster who Nationwide realised the loophole, communicated this and had the funds returned to the original account.....only for the customer to (threaten to) transfer them again?! Now thats ridiculous.

This is an open forum - hence I can participate and as I have one of these and lots of business in Nationwide its in my interest to. I dont like the thought of a mutual being held to ransom by people potentially threatening costly Ombudsman action even after its been pointed out to them that this sort of thing isnt allowed.

Just as I suspect Nationwide will be looking at this thread and going through the account holders that are using this method (even after its been pointed out to them its not allowed).

Its fair enough transfering the money (and approaching the ombudsman) when it wasnt clear that this cant be done. When it has been clarified by Nationwide now thats just stupid. IMHO.

Hooloovoo

veryintrigued wrote: »

Its fair enough transfering the money (and approaching the ombudsman) when it wasnt clear that this cant be done. When it has been clarified by Nationwide now thats just stupid. IMHO.

Nationwide have not clarified anything.

They have made claims that are not in any way backed up by the terms and conditions of the account I opened. Which clearly is not the same thing at all.

They have basically written some Terms and Conditions that we have all agreed to when opening the account, and now they are making stuff up and pretending that Terms exist when they do not. You are happy for a bank to operate in this manner? I'm not.

xylophone

Its fair enough transfering the money (and approaching the ombudsman) when it wasnt clear that this cant be done. When it has been clarified by Nationwide now thats just stupid. IMHO.

I think the situation is as in my post 701?

veryintrigued

Hooloovoo wrote: »

They have basically written some Terms and Conditions that we have all agreed to when opening the account, and now they are making stuff up and pretending that Terms exist when they do not. You are happy for a bank to operate in this manner? I'm not.

You seem to be great at reading T&Cs - re-read any of my posts where Ive said that I am happy with this.

The poster above seems to be encouraging (or certainly not discouraging) new investors to attempt the method you have completed (and subsequently have been advised should not be allowed - whether its in the T&Cs or not - and I understand that this is not acceptable).

However if you feel it responsible and acceptable to advise other users of this forum that this is a sensible course of action knowing what you know now then so be it. Am guessing this may not be the case.

I wish those of you who are attempting to get sensible redress (before you knew 'the inferred T&Cs') from Nationwide / the ombudsman luck.

For those who are considering this movement and encouraging this movement I suggest, with respect, you're crackers.

Milarky

I haven't seen anywhere on this thread mention of "offer and acceptance".

It seems to me that Nationwide only ever 'offered' this account in line with the marketing department's own understanding that is was for 'New subscriptions/annual limit" monies. Thus anyone applying for it at the time (last March or April) would have understood that 'transfers' (i.e. previously subscribed money) were specifically ruled out from any subsequent acceptance by Nationwide. Nationwide did accept that next April's allowance could be added - which was also clearly part of the offer.


That was the offer and that was what customers accepted.


The Ombudsman is probably going to side with Nationwide because (at worst) they are 'guilty' of temptation only by allowing ISA-to-ISA transfers completely online (as opposed to merely raising a request online and generating a human-audited paper 'application for transfer'). 'Good intentions', but now people are using it to deflect the clear 'offer and acceptance' that governs here.

Hooloovoo

veryintrigued wrote: »

However if you feel it responsible and acceptable to advise other users of this forum that this is a sensible course of action knowing what you know now then so be it. Am guessing this may not be the case.

I'm personally not recommending anyone do anything until the Ombudsman have investigated the case.

Milarky wrote: »

That was the offer and that was what customers accepted.

And what about the people who never saw any of the material produced by the marketing department?

What of the people who only saw the headline rate, read the terms and conditions, and went ahead and opened the account?

I don't believe I've ever been asked to confirm that I have seen the advertising material.

le_loup

veryintrigued wrote: »

I havent scrolled back up but were you the poster who Nationwide realised the loophole, communicated this and had the funds returned to the original account.....only for the customer to (threaten to) transfer them again?! Now thats ridiculous.

No.
I am the customer who has put in more than this years ISA allowance:
a) Because the T&Cs said I could
b) Because the NW system allowed me to
c) thus confirming that I could.

I am also not the customer who is using a loophole because there is not one. There are T&Cs which, not only make no reference to transferring other ISA funds, but say that the limit is £5,000,000
I am not seeking redress for anything. I do not know the address of the FOS. I believe passionately in mutuality. AND I love my cat. Does that help to put you straight.

Now, what I'd like to know is what do you think T&Cs are?

le_loup

Milarky wrote: »

That was the offer and that was what customers accepted.

The offer was made, like all other offers from any sale by anyone, subject to the T&Cs.
The only time that I'm aware of where T&Cs get overruled is when the T&Cs are unfair or unreasonable.
The T&Cs of this offer seemed fair and reasonable to me when I signed up AFTER reading them.

veryintrigued

le_loup wrote: »

No.
I am the customer who has put in more than this years ISA allowance:
a) Because the T&Cs said I could

Do they say explicitly say this? I was under the impression they just didnt say it wasnt allowed?

b) Because the NW system allowed me to

Thats shoddy IT.

c) thus confirming that I could.

Really? Guess thats with Mr Ombudsman

I am also not the customer who is using a loophole because there is not one. There are T&Cs which, not only make no reference to transferring other ISA funds, but say that the limit is £5,000,000
I am not seeking redress for anything. I do not know the address of the FOS. I believe passionately in mutuality. AND I love my cat. Does that help to put you straight.

Now, what I'd like to know is what do you think T&Cs are?

I havent studied in the fine comb trooth detail you have (although I would suggest you check that they "said I could" (rather than you cant)).

My input into this (thread) has been to question those who could be perceived as encouraging others to do similar.

Are you the person who also (threaten to) transfer the balance back (after NW pushed it the other way and advised that this shouldnt have been allowed)?

I've popped the replies in red above - hopefully they can be read ok.

Hooloovoo

veryintrigued wrote: »

Do they say explicitly say this? I was under the impression they just didnt say it wasnt allowed?

Terms and Conditions do not have to explicitly say what is allowed. They only have to say what is not allowed.

Just like the law - if there is not a law against something then you are allowed to do it.

It would be blatantly unrealistic to expect the law, or any terms and conditions, to explicitly state everything that you are allowed to do.

Thats shoddy IT.

No. It is IT that is programmed to do what the terms and conditions state. There is no condition that forbids transfer into a Flexclusive ISA. Therefore the website allows it.

I've popped the replies in red above - hopefully they can be read ok.

Why do you and other posters do this? It is incredibly annoying. Just use the quote feature the way it is intended to be used. Posting replies inside a quote is very confusing. Surely it takes more time to mess about colouring the text than it would to quote properly.