Any tips for getting National Trust membership discounted?

qetu1357

pontyman wrote: »

So lets just recap.

1. This is a money saving forum
2. NZ NT allow UK residents to purchase membership, which is cheaper than UK NT.
3. UK NT allow free entry using NZ membership.

What is the problem with saving money on the membership!

Between my wife and I we cancel each year and re-join using a cashback site to save the 25% new members discount and receive maybe £10 cashback plus a free gift (wish they would change this - fed up with a drawer full of binoculars :)).

UK NT should look after existing members better and encourage them to renew!

At the end of the day we spend more at each property we visit on drinks and gifts than we save over the year anyway.

If you can't agree then that's just tough! We all can't agree on everything but this is a money saving forum and we all do what we can to save money (legally) or we wouldn't even look on this site!!

Yes this is a money saving forum but there must be a moral dimension too, musn't there?

If there wasn't, why is a moral dilemna for each us to chew over each week?

See this one

"Money Moral Dilemma: Should I return £2,000 insurance cash?


"I accidentally put my treasured old Omega watch through a washing cycle and when it came out, it wasn’t working. I sent it to my insurer who sent it back with a ‘beyond repair’ note and a voucher for £2000. The thing is, it’s now in perfect working order again. Should I send back the vouchers and get my £100 excess back or keep quiet?"

And see the first post

"Easy. Spend the vouchers and keep quiet.
You claimed and they paid, all done in good faith.

Although you might want to change insurer before you put it in the wash again"

So all money saving has a moral dimension too.

If we forget morality on these boards where do we end up?

beefturnmail

Most money moral dilemmas on this site involve some sort of minor deception and/or dishonesty. For example, the one you have stated involves being slightly dishonest by not informing the insurer that the watch is now working.

Once again - taking advantage of this loophole involves NO dishonesty or deception. All parties (me, the NT, the NZ Historic Trust) and fully aware of all details and information. That is where the difference lies.

The only moral argument you have is the charity angle, (for reasons I have stated numerous times), however this is tenuous as I do not agree that people should be made to feel obligated to donate to an organisation simply becasue it is a charity.

qetu1357

And you still don't (won't) get it.

I'm not saving anyone should give to a charity.

But if you use a charity's services (such as visiting one of their historic houses) you should rather than avoid/evade it by some convoluted workaround.

dazzer68

I just had a quick recap on what's happened here. Qetu, you've made your point, I think people have got it, can we just leave it now and let people decide by themselves. I think thy have both sides of the deal, and what's involved. You have your views and others have there's.no ones going 'to win'. Both arguements have been well covered, and recovered.

hybernia

I've been re-directed here from another and more current thread about the National Trust, but wanted to express belated thanks to the main posters on this one and especially beefturnmail's crystal clear post:

I am NOT using the NT services without paying them a membership fee. I am using the services of the New Zealand Historic Trust (membership, one of the benefits of which is entry to NT properties) and I am paying for this.

As to this from qetu:

qetu1357 wrote: »

. . .
Unfortunately, NT's only way to stop you and your like ripping them off (remember NT is a charity, it is a charity you are ripping off) is to not allow genuine NZ members to visit UK properties.
.

The prospect of heritage hungry New Zealand National Trust members losing the right to visit NT properties over here is surely over-egging your particular pudding?

It seems not unreasonable to assume that these heritage organisations. . . talk to each other. So if the NT for England, Wales & Northern Ireland has a problem with its reciprocal partner in New Zealand, chances are, it would say so.

That would leave the NT for New Zealand with the option of following the example of the Isle of Man's Friends of the Manx Heritage -- another reciprocal partner -- to approve membership applications only from individuals resident in that location.

But perhaps the National Trust for England, Wales & Northern Ireland has absolutely no idea what its reciprocal partners are doing, and never talks to them nor ever shares anything with them, and so would greatly appreciate yet a further communication from you. . . In fact at this rate, you're going to wind up with more free binoculars and other sub-Readers' Digest 'gifts' from the NT than can be counted.

We're thinking of joing the National Trust for Ireland, £34 for a retired couple. Guess you'd better report us as well now.

qetu1357

hybernia wrote: »

I've been re-directed here from another and more current thread about the National Trust, but wanted to express belated thanks to the main posters on this one and especially beefturnmail's crystal clear post:

I am NOT using the NT services without paying them a membership fee. I am using the services of the New Zealand Historic Trust (membership, one of the benefits of which is entry to NT properties) and I am paying for this.

As to this from qetu:



The prospect of heritage hungry New Zealand National Trust members losing the right to visit NT properties over here is surely over-egging your particular pudding?

It seems not unreasonable to assume that these heritage organisations. . . talk to each other. So if the NT for England, Wales & Northern Ireland has a problem with its reciprocal partner in New Zealand, chances are, it would say so.

That would leave the NT for New Zealand with the option of following the example of the Isle of Man's Friends of the Manx Heritage -- another reciprocal partner -- to approve membership applications only from individuals resident in that location.

But perhaps the National Trust for England, Wales & Northern Ireland has absolutely no idea what its reciprocal partners are doing, and never talks to them nor ever shares anything with them, and so would greatly appreciate yet a further communication from you. . . In fact at this rate, you're going to wind up with more free binoculars and other sub-Readers' Digest 'gifts' from the NT than can be counted.

We're thinking of joing the National Trust for Ireland, £34 for a retired couple. Guess you'd better report us as well now.

Another person glad to exploit a ripoff to cheat a UK charity out of revenue...............

Pete_T_2

Hi - I want to join the NT , rather than an overseas organisation as I want the free parking. Does anyone know of any discounts, mechanisms, etc. to reduce the cost of individual or joint membership. Thanks
PS please do not respond with a moral tirade, just looking for a way to save money

gentlepurr

Pete_T wrote: »

Hi - I want to join the NT , rather than an overseas organisation as I want the free parking. Does anyone know of any discounts, mechanisms, etc. to reduce the cost of individual or joint membership. Thanks
PS please do not respond with a moral tirade, just looking for a way to save money

Lol, hope you manage to find my reply amongst all the arguing

As best as i can work out, 25% off buying online, go through a cashback site, topcashback is currently 10.1% (although i have seen this higher in the past ) BUT, membership is valid to the end of the month that you buy it in, so buying tonight, for example, your membership will be valid to end of Oct next year, but buying in the morning (ie,1st Nov) you membership will not expire until 30th Nov 2013 therefore gaining an extra month.

However, dont fall into the trap of paying your entrance on the day to buy
membership cheaper online later as the admission you will have paid will more than likely be more than the saving you will make iyswim.

gp xx

gentlepurr

Oh, and for gawds sake perhaps you lot will quit all the argumentative posts so peeps can actually FIND any moneysaving posts

grahamc2003

qetu1357 wrote: »

Another person glad to exploit a ripoff to cheat a UK charity out of revenue...............

You seem very anxious to keep repeating the word 'charity' as an emotional support for your, imo, odd stance on this issue.

Were the NT a charity in the sense that say the Salvation Army is a charity, and a deprivation of twenty quid would likely lead to 20 unfortunate people not eating one evening, your stance would have some merit.

But, although a charity, I feel it is also an extremely ruthless business empire too, and far from providing roofs over the heads of the poorest in society - as most associate with a charity - the NT provides very exclusive expensive accommodation for generally the upper class who can live out their final years in the style to which they have been accustomed.

So perhaps in your argument you should stop pushing the emotional 'charity' word. Take that away though, and I don't think you have any valid points at all - moral or legal.