Portman/Nationwide merger - membership rights

mikbruin

Sorry the wording was a bit misleading in my earlier post. according toi the nationwide director, as long as i closed all my nationwide accounts for 2 years, and left £100 in my portman, in 2 years time i would be a full NW member without signaway.
i haven't had the formal response yet so am doing nothing till i get that. but am prepared to close my accounts as the only time i use my flexaccount is when i go abroad to avoid charges, and can use mrs account instead.
You never know there might be a "£100 to move to us" offer on again, i can transfer the odd direct debit to, in 2 years time!
I think that sometime in the future some foreign(?) bank would be willing to pay a good price for NW (its big enough to be worth it), and it will eventually be taken over. I'm totally guessing of course!

MarkyMarkD

plumb1 wrote: »

When the greedy board of directors wish to convert and get the £Millions, they will amend the clause to do so. Stating it is for the benifit of OUR memebrs. Just like SL did.

But that WAS for the benefit of the members. Just like it would be if Nationwide was to convert.

comping_cat

Just found this thread, and im now confused!!!
I have a Nationwide account, opened around 2000, and its a signaway account.
I also have a Portman account, opened years ago, and isnt a sign away account - i will get the £200 (well, think they will be paying £160 after tax??).

Should i be closing my Nationwide account now, before the merger goes through, so that IF the Nationwide becomes a PLC, i will benefit? Or is it that i will become a full member after 2 years?

Compound_2

catowen wrote: »

Just found this thread, and im now confused!!!
I have a Nationwide account, opened around 2000, and its a signaway account.
I also have a Portman account, opened years ago, and isnt a sign away account - i will get the £200 (well, think they will be paying £160 after tax??).

Should i be closing my Nationwide account now, before the merger goes through, so that IF the Nationwide becomes a PLC, i will benefit? Or is it that i will become a full member after 2 years?

You should close the Nationwide account before the merger.

MarkyMarkD

You won't ever become a full member, if you retain your present Nationwide account, because you've signed away your windfall benefits.

There's a possibility that, if you close your Nationwide account, you'll then get full Nationwide membership following the merger, and become entitled to any windfall benefits at the latest 2 years after you closed your original Nationwide account.

But that's only a possibility because Nationwide are deliberately making this very unclear - by failing to advise people properly of the correct course of action and relying on the fact that "it'll never happen".

I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing to lose by closing a Nationwide sign away account, in your position (assuming it's not an ISA and you won't lose any tax benefits).

comping_cat

Thanks for that advice, think i will close the Nationwide account, it doesnt matter if they dont turn into a PLC, but if they do, id rather benefit!!!

plumb1_2

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

You won't ever become a full member, if you retain your present Nationwide account, because you've signed away your windfall benefits.

But that's only a possibility because Nationwide are deliberately making this very unclear - by failing to advise people properly of the correct course of action and relying on the fact that "it'll never happen".

I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing to lose by closing a Nationwide sign away account, in your position (assuming it's not an ISA and you won't lose any tax benefits).

All this is purly guess work, thats why Nationwide won't make this clear.

They will have to make the signaway null&void to gain the votes.
Just like everyone is now claiming their bank charges back, unfair contract( you were forced to sign) and that will be the same if this goes to court.

MarkyMarkD

That's a bit of a leap in logic.

For one thing, no court has declared bank charges illegal.

For another, there's a world of difference between bank charges which are a core part of the account's terms, and membership which (historically at least) was a peripheral benefit of opening a savings account with a building society.

Until not that long ago, BSs offered both deposit accounts (which didn't give membership) and share accounts (which did give membership). I think that a Building Societies Act must have made this distinction illegal, as otherwise they'd just have used this option and made all new accounts deposit accounts.

plumb1_2

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap in logic.

For one thing, no court has declared bank charges illegal.

Didn't say they were illegal(unfair contract) big difference.

When the time comes to demutalise, they will need the 75% vote and they wont get this if 50%+ members will not qualify for a payout. They wont take a gamble and have egg on their faces, far better to please all the members, so they can give mega bucks payouts for themselves.
These signaway clause's where rushed out by all BS to stop the baggers, not 1 have been used or tested todate.
Just like Standard Life(directors) changed the rules to suit themselves.



These are my opinions and with over 35+ Bs accounts and several Mutual SHP's, these signaway clause's dont worry me in the slightist, of course others have different opinions on this subject.

monty_don

hi
I had a mortgage with Portman till April 2007 for 2yrs. The merger with nationwide occurred in Aug sept 2007, I had voted for the merger. Does anybody know if I should pursue for a pay off They say that I should have actually been with Portman when the actual merger took place in April 2007. IS this true.


Could somebody help me please

thanks
Sumitra