Nationwide slow customer service

masonic

epm-84 said:

newatc said:

I've made 3 ISA transfers from Nationwide during the lockdown and they've gone through with no delay (all within a week I think). 

I wonder whether Nationwide are focusing on getting the accounts with smaller deposits through first.  A lot of the complaints about delays seem to be from people who have large deposits meaning they lose the most from a delay to an alternative account with a better interest rate.  From a cashflow prospective for Nationwide it might be easier for them to get the accounts with smaller deposits transferred first and it might also help them meet any targets e.g. transferring 9 accounts with £10,000 each and delaying 1 account with £90,000 means 90% of transfers haven't been delayed, the other way around it would be 10% but with £90,000 still being transferred out of Nationwide.

The balance of the account would be immaterial to the statistics or the amount of work it takes to process the transfer. If they were going to prioritise some transfers over others, then it would make most sense to prioritise the electronic transfers over the paper transfers, since those require less work to do so they can get through more of those in the same space of time. If they were going to prioritise based on balance (which doesn't make any sense), getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much.

I suppose the other way it might be possible to diddle the statistics is to focus on the transfers that are not yet delayed, and write off the ones that already are delayed.

However, I rather suspect the transfers are being processed in the order received, delays are down to the method of transfer supported by the two ISA managers, and differing capacity to execute paper vs electronic transfers as mentioned in a previous reply. Add into that postal delays and you have a very simple explanation that adequately explains the observed results.

epm-84

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

newatc said:

I've made 3 ISA transfers from Nationwide during the lockdown and they've gone through with no delay (all within a week I think). 

I wonder whether Nationwide are focusing on getting the accounts with smaller deposits through first.  A lot of the complaints about delays seem to be from people who have large deposits meaning they lose the most from a delay to an alternative account with a better interest rate.  From a cashflow prospective for Nationwide it might be easier for them to get the accounts with smaller deposits transferred first and it might also help them meet any targets e.g. transferring 9 accounts with £10,000 each and delaying 1 account with £90,000 means 90% of transfers haven't been delayed, the other way around it would be 10% but with £90,000 still being transferred out of Nationwide.

The balance of the account would be immaterial to the statistics or the amount of work it takes to process the transfer. If they were going to prioritise some transfers over others, then it would make most sense to prioritise the electronic transfers over the paper transfers, since those require less work to do so they can get through more of those in the same space of time. If they were going to prioritise based on balance (which doesn't make any sense), getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much.
...
Add into that postal delays and you have a very simple explanation that adequately explains the observed results.

I didn't say or imply that 9 ISAs with £10,000 in would be the same amount of work as one ISA with £90,000 in.  What I said was if they transfer 9 ISAs with £10,000 within the target time and miss it with the £90,000 one then they can say they hit the target with 90% of ISA transfers.

Given the rates have now gone down significantly how is the interest a burden to them?  I'm sure any bank or building society would love some customers to put huge amounts in to low interest accounts as it means they have the money and can lend it to mortgage/loan/credit card customers who will pay significantly higher interest rates for the privilege. 

Why are you saying what I suggested doesn't make any sense?  Do you think Nationwide can afford to offer payment holidays, interest free overdrafts and market leading rates on mortgages if all their customers with significant savings decide to close their accounts?  How can they loan money if they have no money to loan?

As I mentioned in another thread my electronic transfer took 13 working days, despite the new provider crediting my new account, the day after Nationwide closed my old account.  If the new provider had done it 3 working days after Nationwide closed my old account, it would have missed the 15 day target.  Nationwide also sent a text to me apologising for the delay in actioning the request which they said was due to them being 'exceptionally busy.'

masonic

epm-84 said:

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

newatc said:

I've made 3 ISA transfers from Nationwide during the lockdown and they've gone through with no delay (all within a week I think). 

I wonder whether Nationwide are focusing on getting the accounts with smaller deposits through first.  A lot of the complaints about delays seem to be from people who have large deposits meaning they lose the most from a delay to an alternative account with a better interest rate.  From a cashflow prospective for Nationwide it might be easier for them to get the accounts with smaller deposits transferred first and it might also help them meet any targets e.g. transferring 9 accounts with £10,000 each and delaying 1 account with £90,000 means 90% of transfers haven't been delayed, the other way around it would be 10% but with £90,000 still being transferred out of Nationwide.

The balance of the account would be immaterial to the statistics or the amount of work it takes to process the transfer. If they were going to prioritise some transfers over others, then it would make most sense to prioritise the electronic transfers over the paper transfers, since those require less work to do so they can get through more of those in the same space of time. If they were going to prioritise based on balance (which doesn't make any sense), getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much.
...
Add into that postal delays and you have a very simple explanation that adequately explains the observed results.

I didn't say or imply that 9 ISAs with £10,000 in would be the same amount of work as one ISA with £90,000 in.  What I said was if they transfer 9 ISAs with £10,000 within the target time and miss it with the £90,000 one then they can say they hit the target with 90% of ISA transfers.

I didn't misunderstand your point. I'm stating that if 10 ISAs are to be transferred it is the statistics will be the same whether the £90k ISA is transferred first, last or in any other position. They'll have a 90% success rate upon transferring any 9 of those 10 ISAs. My second point is that it takes the same amount of work to transfer an ISA valued at £90k as one valued at £10k. Though I hope nobody would hold an ISA valued at £90k.

epm-84 said:

Given the rates have now gone down significantly how is the interest a burden to them?  I'm sure any bank or building society would love some customers to put huge amounts in to low interest accounts as it means they have the money and can lend it to mortgage/loan/credit card customers who will pay significantly higher interest rates for the privilege.

They can't lend money that needs to be paid away to mortgage/loan/credit card customers. They could lend it on the short term money markets, but 1 week LIBOR is currently at 0.07% so they'll be making a loss if they try to hang on to the money for an extra week or two vs. closing down the account and releasing themselves from the interest burden ASAP. They'd be better off borrowing money in order to discharge themselves from interest liabilities of 1% or thereabouts.

epm-84 said:

Why are you saying what I suggested doesn't make any sense?  Do you think Nationwide can afford to offer payment holidays, interest free overdrafts and market leading rates on mortgages if all their customers with significant savings decide to close their accounts?  How can they loan money if they have no money to loan?

Financial institutions are being flooded with cheap money due to current economic policies, that's why they don't need our money. It behoves them not to completely shun customers because this era of monetary policy won't last forever, which is why accounts are paying interest at well above the BoE base rate of 0.1%, but no financial institution wants to be in the top tables at the moment, other than newcomers trying to gain market share.

epm-84 said:

As I mentioned in another thread my electronic transfer took 13 working days, despite the new provider crediting my new account, the day after Nationwide closed my old account.  If the new provider had done it 3 working days after Nationwide closed my old account, it would have missed the 15 day target.  Nationwide also sent a text to me apologising for the delay in actioning the request which they said was due to them being 'exceptionally busy.'

It's good they are starting to apologise for the delays now. My transfer took a little over the 15 working days to complete and I received a text from Nationwide to say they'd processed it, but no apology (not that I felt one was warranted given the circumstances).

MDMD

I made two applications on the same day to transfer two ISAs from Nationwide, a HTB one to HSBC, and a standard one to Virgin Money.  Despite the HSBC one requiring me to post a form, it went into the postbox on a Wednesday morning, the following Tuesday, the money was with the new provider.  The one going to VM has not budged. No idea if the delay is with Nationwide or Virgin though.

epm-84

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

newatc said:

I've made 3 ISA transfers from Nationwide during the lockdown and they've gone through with no delay (all within a week I think). 

I wonder whether Nationwide are focusing on getting the accounts with smaller deposits through first.  A lot of the complaints about delays seem to be from people who have large deposits meaning they lose the most from a delay to an alternative account with a better interest rate.  From a cashflow prospective for Nationwide it might be easier for them to get the accounts with smaller deposits transferred first and it might also help them meet any targets e.g. transferring 9 accounts with £10,000 each and delaying 1 account with £90,000 means 90% of transfers haven't been delayed, the other way around it would be 10% but with £90,000 still being transferred out of Nationwide.

The balance of the account would be immaterial to the statistics or the amount of work it takes to process the transfer. If they were going to prioritise some transfers over others, then it would make most sense to prioritise the electronic transfers over the paper transfers, since those require less work to do so they can get through more of those in the same space of time. If they were going to prioritise based on balance (which doesn't make any sense), getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much.
...
Add into that postal delays and you have a very simple explanation that adequately explains the observed results.

I didn't say or imply that 9 ISAs with £10,000 in would be the same amount of work as one ISA with £90,000 in.  What I said was if they transfer 9 ISAs with £10,000 within the target time and miss it with the £90,000 one then they can say they hit the target with 90% of ISA transfers.

I didn't misunderstand your point. I'm stating that if 10 ISAs are to be transferred it is the statistics will be the same whether the £90k ISA is transferred first, last or in any other position. They'll have a 90% success rate upon transferring any 9 of those 10 ISAs. My second point is that it takes the same amount of work to transfer an ISA valued at £90k as one valued at £10k. Though I hope nobody would hold an ISA valued at £90k.
....

which is why accounts are paying interest at well above the BoE base rate of 0.1%, but no financial institution wants to be in the top tables at the moment, other than newcomers trying to gain market share.

You obviously do either misunderstand my point or your maths isn't that good.  I'm not talking about how much work is involved, I'm talking about how quickly large sums of money go out of the building society.  Nationwide have made themselves one of the worst providers to hold an ISA with, when previously there were one of the best.  Potentially they are dealing with millions of pounds being transferred out of Nationwide accounts due to how noncompetitive they've become, literally overnight.  They'll have loads of ISAs with small amounts to transfer and loads with large amounts to transfer.  For their position in performance tables it doesn't matter how much is in each ISA they hit their target with and which ones they don't, what matters is the number of transfer requests they hit the target with.  Yes I get that the admin work involved for transferring an ISA isn't proportional to the value of the ISA but I'm not talking about the amount of work I'm talking about how Nationwide managers are prioritising the workload when they've obviously got too much work for the number of staff they have.

Given someone said they had 3 Nationwide ISAs transferred quickly, I presume each individual ISA they had didn't have that much money in them, while the people who've got quite a bit in one Nationwide ISA are finding their transfers are taking longer.

The £90k and £10k figures were to try and make it simple.  I could make it £85k to fit with the compensation limit but then it makes it more complicated to explain.  An easy access cash ISA might not the right place for a large sum long term but what if you need someone to store a large sum for a few months before a big purchase like a house purchase, then maybe you would transfer a large sum from a S&S ISA?

masonic

epm-84 said:

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

masonic said:

epm-84 said:

newatc said:

I've made 3 ISA transfers from Nationwide during the lockdown and they've gone through with no delay (all within a week I think). 

I wonder whether Nationwide are focusing on getting the accounts with smaller deposits through first.  A lot of the complaints about delays seem to be from people who have large deposits meaning they lose the most from a delay to an alternative account with a better interest rate.  From a cashflow prospective for Nationwide it might be easier for them to get the accounts with smaller deposits transferred first and it might also help them meet any targets e.g. transferring 9 accounts with £10,000 each and delaying 1 account with £90,000 means 90% of transfers haven't been delayed, the other way around it would be 10% but with £90,000 still being transferred out of Nationwide.

The balance of the account would be immaterial to the statistics or the amount of work it takes to process the transfer. If they were going to prioritise some transfers over others, then it would make most sense to prioritise the electronic transfers over the paper transfers, since those require less work to do so they can get through more of those in the same space of time. If they were going to prioritise based on balance (which doesn't make any sense), getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much.
...
Add into that postal delays and you have a very simple explanation that adequately explains the observed results.

I didn't say or imply that 9 ISAs with £10,000 in would be the same amount of work as one ISA with £90,000 in.  What I said was if they transfer 9 ISAs with £10,000 within the target time and miss it with the £90,000 one then they can say they hit the target with 90% of ISA transfers.

I didn't misunderstand your point. I'm stating that if 10 ISAs are to be transferred it is the statistics will be the same whether the £90k ISA is transferred first, last or in any other position. They'll have a 90% success rate upon transferring any 9 of those 10 ISAs. My second point is that it takes the same amount of work to transfer an ISA valued at £90k as one valued at £10k. Though I hope nobody would hold an ISA valued at £90k.
....

which is why accounts are paying interest at well above the BoE base rate of 0.1%, but no financial institution wants to be in the top tables at the moment, other than newcomers trying to gain market share.

You obviously do either misunderstand my point or your maths isn't that good.  I'm not talking about how much work is involved, I'm talking about how quickly large sums of money go out of the building society.  Nationwide have made themselves one of the worst providers to hold an ISA with, when previously there were one of the best.  Potentially they are dealing with millions of pounds being transferred out of Nationwide accounts due to how noncompetitive they've become, literally overnight.  They'll have loads of ISAs with small amounts to transfer and loads with large amounts to transfer.  For their position in performance tables it doesn't matter how much is in each ISA they hit their target with and which ones they don't, what matters is the number of transfer requests they hit the target with.  Yes I get that the admin work involved for transferring an ISA isn't proportional to the value of the ISA but I'm not talking about the amount of work I'm talking about how Nationwide managers are prioritising the workload when they've obviously got too much work for the number of staff they have.

I can assure you that I do understand your point and my maths is good enough to know that even the 0.25% offered for the triple access ISA is more than 0.07%.

We seem to be agreeing on the fact that due to the current crisis and Government guidelines, Nationwide has too much work for the number of staff they can accommodate in their offices right now, and no doubt those working from home are less able to do some of their tasks as efficiently than if they had been in the office, while they may not be able to complete other tasks at all.

Where we disagree is on what they are doing about it. As I've pointed out a couple of times now, it is in their interests to get that money out as soon as possible. Every day they delay is another day they need to pay interest on the cash and that is costing them money. As I've stated in the previous post you quoted: "getting rid of the high balance accounts first would make more sense since the interest burden on those accounts is higher and it clearly doesn't want the money or it wouldn't have cut the rates so much". As I also stated: "Financial institutions are being flooded with cheap money due to current economic policies, that's why they don't need our money. It behoves them not to completely shun customers because this era of monetary policy won't last forever, which is why accounts are paying interest at well above the BoE base rate of 0.1%, but no financial institution wants to be in the top tables at the moment, other than newcomers trying to gain market share." Also, "They can't lend money that needs to be paid away to mortgage/loan/credit card customers. They could lend it on the short term money markets, but 1 week LIBOR is currently at 0.07% so they'll be making a loss if they try to hang on to the money for an extra week or two vs. closing down the account and releasing themselves from the interest burden ASAP. They'd be better off borrowing money in order to discharge themselves from interest liabilities of 1% or thereabouts."

Which is why I concluded that if they aren't processing transfer requests in the order received as they should, if they had any sense they'd process the requests involving larger balances as a priority over those involving smaller balances.

I think they are processing requests in the order received and the differences in transfer times are merely the result of different transfer mechanisms, postal delays, etc. Each transfer involving a different receiving ISA manager has the potential to be different, and it will be down to luck as to whether any specific ISA transfer runs into particular delays.

Neither of us know the inner workings of Nationwide's customer services department, but what we do know is the delays getting this money out of Nationwide is lose/lose - it's hurting customers and also hurting Nationwide financially due to the interest burden.

epm-84 said:

Given someone said they had 3 Nationwide ISAs transferred quickly, I presume each individual ISA they had didn't have that much money in them, while the people who've got quite a bit in one Nationwide ISA are finding their transfers are taking longer.

I'm not going to presume anything about the balance of others' ISAs, but the ISA I transferred from Nationwide was one with a small balance (less than even the £10k in your example figures) and it was not completed within the 15 working days guidelines.

epm-84 said:

The £90k and £10k figures were to try and make it simple.  I could make it £85k to fit with the compensation limit but then it makes it more complicated to explain.  An easy access cash ISA might not the right place for a large sum long term but what if you need someone to store a large sum for a few months before a big purchase like a house purchase, then maybe you would transfer a large sum from a S&S ISA?

If you need the money within a few months, then I definitely agree if it is in a S&S ISA it should be removed from there, but there is little value in preserving the ISA status of the money for a few months if it is then going to be spent. If that money had found a temporary home in a Nationwide ISA, then rather than transfer, simply withdraw at the appropriate time, which avoids any delays. Starting a formal ISA transfer in the weeks leading up to you needing access to the money is too risky when it is well known ISA transfers are subject to problems and delays. NS&I is offering a reasonable instant access savings account where the money could be put for a short while, also avoiding the issue of the FSCS compensation limit.

epm-84

^ 0.25% is also what they offer for the Loyalty Single Access ISA.  Can you name another ISA which only allows one withdrawal per year to maintain the advertised rate, which offers less than 0.25% interest?  Virgin Money offer 1.01% for their Double Take ISA - 4 times the rate, whether you're a new or existing customer.  It used to be Nationwide offered 1.4% and Virgin offered 1.45%. 

Virgin have had a product that's one of the best on the market for the past few years and still do, so I don't really agree that only challenger banks are offering market leading rate.  Virgin are now part of Clydesdale Bank and became a presence on the high street after purchasing Northern Rock, so I wouldn't class them as a challenger bank.

masonic

epm-84 said:

^ 0.25% is also what they offer for the Loyalty Single Access ISA.  Can you name another ISA which only allows one withdrawal per year to maintain the advertised rate, which offers less than 0.25% interest?  Virgin Money offer 1.01% for their Double Take ISA - 4 times the rate, whether you're a new or existing customer.  It used to be Nationwide offered 1.4% and Virgin offered 1.45%. 

I'm not aware of any other ISAs in existance that have a "one withdrawal per year" term. But I'm very happy to agree with you that Nationwide's range of ISAs is no longer competitive. That fact has no bearing on the points I have made in previous posts.

epm-84 said:

Virgin have had a product that's one of the best on the market for the past few years and still do, so I don't really agree that only challenger banks are offering market leading rate.  Virgin are now part of Clydesdale Bank and became a presence on the high street after purchasing Northern Rock, so I wouldn't class them as a challenger bank.

The Virgin Money brand in its current guise only popped up about a year ago, and it has been targeting a 40% increase in market share. So it absolutely fits the definition of a "newcomers trying to gain market share".

epm-84

epm-84 said:

Virgin have had a product that's one of the best on the market for the past few years and still do, so I don't really agree that only challenger banks are offering market leading rate.  Virgin are now part of Clydesdale Bank and became a presence on the high street after purchasing Northern Rock, so I wouldn't class them as a challenger bank.

The Virgin Money brand in its current guise only popped up about a year ago, and it has been targeting a 40% increase in market share. So it absolutely fits the definition of a "newcomers trying to gain market share".

The Virgin Double Take ISAs and ESavers have been around for quite a few years.  I don't agree Virgin Money only recently popped up in current guise, Clydesdale Bank have taken it over but kept the branding and how they operate with regards to savings is very much the same to how it used to operate prior to the takeover.  What is changing is Clydesdale will be rebranding their own banks as Virgin Money.  The links you refer to focus on business banking and mortgages, not savings.  A few posts ago you implied savings are no longer necessary for financial institutions offering mortgages due to how cheap and easy it is for them to borrow.

masonic

epm-84 said:

epm-84 said:

Virgin have had a product that's one of the best on the market for the past few years and still do, so I don't really agree that only challenger banks are offering market leading rate.  Virgin are now part of Clydesdale Bank and became a presence on the high street after purchasing Northern Rock, so I wouldn't class them as a challenger bank.

The Virgin Money brand in its current guise only popped up about a year ago, and it has been targeting a 40% increase in market share. So it absolutely fits the definition of a "newcomers trying to gain market share".

The Virgin Double Take ISAs and ESavers have been around for quite a few years.  I don't agree Virgin Money only recently popped up in current guise, Clydesdale Bank have taken it over but kept the branding and how they operate with regards to savings is very much the same to how it used to operate prior to the takeover.  What is changing is Clydesdale will be rebranding their own banks as Virgin Money.

There's really no point in quibbling about what constitutes a newcomer. CYBG has basically acquired the Virgin Money brand and changed its name in order to start trading using that brand, so it is new to them, but on this point we can agree to disagree.

epm-84 said:

The links you refer to focus on business banking and mortgages, not savings.  A few posts ago you implied savings are no longer necessary for financial institutions offering mortgages due to how cheap and easy it is for them to borrow.

I did not imply that savings are no longer necessary for financial institutions offering mortgages due to how cheap and easy it is for them to borrow, although you might have misinterpreted what I did write and incorrecly inferred that. It's a matter of quantity and proportion.

What I stated was "Financial institutions are being flooded with cheap money due to current economic policies, that's why they don't need our money. It behoves them not to completely shun customers because this era of monetary policy won't last forever, which is why accounts are paying interest at well above the BoE base rate of 0.1%, but no financial institution wants to be in the top tables at the moment, other than newcomers trying to gain market share."

Your objection to my use of the term "newcomers" is noted, so let's strike it from the statement so it now reads "...other than those trying to gain market share." The rest of that statement clearly sets out the reason why financial institutions in general do not consider consumer savings to be altogether unnecessary, and why those trying to build market share are an exception to the general trend and those institutions are more inclined to have market leading rates. In the event they boost their savings business to a sufficient level, their rates will also start to plummet.

Now, do you have any further nit-picking I can help you with?