They made me sign - was that legal

jamesmac_2

I was in barclays bank yesterday and i 'overheard' and watch as an elderly gentleman was in there reporting having lost his Woolwich savings book.

As i understand it the two have merged recently?

Anyway, he was told that instead of a replacement book, he would have to open up a new account with barclays.

That however reminded me of how, when i popped into nationwide (where ive had an account since the mid 90's), that before i applied to add on a credit card, i would first 'have' to sign a form declaring that in the event of a merger, i would not profit.

I was told that i had no choice and could not use my account unless i signed it.

Prehaps stupidly, i did.

I couldnt help but think somthing underhand was going on with there (the same as with the old gentleman yesterday, who quite possibly was being duped into dumping his old savings account, with which would have come windfall possibilities).


My question is, was it all above board / legal,Nationwide telling me i had no option, had to sign, and could not use the account (carry on to) unless i signed.

Is there a date when 'accounts opened after...' are disqualified from any windfalls (in the future, upon merging)?


many thanks


James

gt94sss2

jamesmac wrote: »

I was in barclays bank yesterday and i 'overheard' and watch as an elderly gentleman was in there reporting having lost his Woolwich savings book.

As i understand it the two have merged recently?

Anyway, he was told that instead of a replacement book, he would have to open up a new account with barclays.

Barclays purchased Woolwich over 5 years ago - its just recently they have rebranded..

That however reminded me of how, when i popped into nationwide (where ive had an account since the mid 90's), that before i applied to add on a credit card, i would first 'have' to sign a form declaring that in the event of a merger, i would not profit.

I was told that i had no choice and could not use my account unless i signed it.

My question is, was it all above board / legal,Nationwide telling me i had no option, had to sign, and could not use the account (carry on to) unless i signed.

If you are an existing member of Nationwide from before the 'windfall forms' started and you have always maintained an account there then the forms don't apply to you.. but you still have to sign them.

Regards
Sunil

robnye

the forms or for when you open new accounts, as far as i know yes they are able to refuse to open your account unless you sign the form

dunstonh

you sign to agree the t&c. Without the signature they cannot do it.

Milarky

jamesmac wrote: »

Is there a date when 'accounts opened after...' are disqualified from any windfalls (in the future, upon merging)?

For Nationwide members, November 1997 - anyone applying to join since that date has been required to 'sign away' those rights. Anyone with continuous membership since before that date still have the rights. Anyone becoming a Nationwide member as a result of the Portman takeover (opps 'merger') may either carry those rights over to the new society OR reacquire those rights five years after they first signed them away when they joined the Portman (which had a more common 'five year' clause) OR might stay in exactly the same position (if they also held Nationwide account and joined after November 1997)

Also 'mergers' don't count for the purposes of these clauses - only flotation or sale of the business or anything that ends its 'mutual' status. But Nationwide has no larger societies to merge with being 60%+ of the whole BS movement. (I suppose it could merge with a large mutual insurer but are there any left?)

Finally, the 'sign away' clause is widely regarded as unenforcible - because it requires 75% support of all members to even change the status of a building society. At Nationwide about 60% of members are signed away. So they represent a block larger than the customers eligible for a windfall. The board is therefore expected to remove the clause if it ever proposes a change of status.