£100 payment - Nationwide Fairer Share

GibbsRule_No3.

Searcher2 said:

Over 30 years with Nationwide, over £35k in their Loyalty Saver account but not considered a loyal enough customer to get the £100.  But as others have mentioned, someone who started an account less than 5 months ago could get it.  There could be quite a few of us loyal customers leaving now.  

I am probably one of those.  I was looking for a new bank, due to there not being any branches of Co-Op near me any more.  Nationwide, on the other hand were opening branches near me.  The £200 bribe to join certainly helped but then the offer of a better savings rate, granted for a year, was also an incentive to open a savings account as well.  When i have been a customer longer and don’t benefit from anything then I’m sure I will feel aggrieved as well.  The branches near me though will help.

oap71

I've placed a complaint into Nationwide with regards to the £100 payment - Nationwide Fairer Share scheme in that as a Nationwide member for near 30 years I'm not eligible for this payment as we've not got a Saving account, and have paid off our mortgage a few years ago.
As a member I'm eligible to vote , and vote at the annual meetings .

Hopefully we'll hear in 5 working days from their complaints department.

DE_612183

I guess it depends on what product you have - I presume you just have a current account?

If they made the payment to everyone who had a current account perhaps the payment would be a lot less?

CRISPIANNE3

I have been with them for over 20 years and paid my NW mortgage off 8 years ago. I have a current account with which is regularly funded and the savings account has a zero balance. I too vote at the agm. However unfair it may be they have laid the rules down and I have just to accept it is what it is. No complaints from me.

TheBanker

A complaint won't succeed because there is nothing wrong from a legal or regulatory perspective with their method of distributing profit. A complaint would only succeed if there had been an error by the Society which meant you didn't receive the payment despite meeting the criteria.

It is however still worth complaining, as an increase in complaints may prompt a re-think about the criteria used in future.

Hantsboy1

To describe this as a reward for ‘loyal’ customers is risible. I have had a current account with Nationwide since at least the1980s and a mortgage, since paid off. Yet, due to their historically low rates, I don’t currently have a savings account and don’t seem to qualify for the £100. Is it a coincidence that Parliament’s Treasury Committee wrote to Nationwide on May 10th criticising their low interest rates? Basically they are paying some customers back with their own money, ie that they would have earned with better rates : isn’t that a form of Ponzi scheme? Or are they hoping to lure savers to their low rates in the hope of a bonus next year, rather than actually increasing the rates? So, someone who has been with Nationwide for less than 4 months could qualify but I don’t. That is a strange definition of loyalty

Section62

Hantsboy1 said:

To describe this as a reward for ‘loyal’ customers is risible. I have had a current account with Nationwide since at least the1980s and a mortgage, since paid off. Yet, due to their historically low rates, I don’t currently have a savings account and don’t seem to qualify for the £100. Is it a coincidence that Parliament’s Treasury Committee wrote to Nationwide on May 10th criticising their low interest rates? Basically they are paying some customers back with their own money, ie that they would have earned with better rates : isn’t that a form of Ponzi scheme? Or are they hoping to lure savers to their low rates in the hope of a bonus next year, rather than actually increasing the rates? So, someone who has been with Nationwide for less than 4 months could qualify but I don’t. That is a strange definition of loyalty

Unfotunately for long-term members, Nationwide haven't decided to reward 'loyal' members... instead they have created a new category of "members with the deepest relationships", assigned some relatively arbitrary criteria to define that, then decided to give the lucky ones a bonus of £100.

DE_612183

Nationwide have 16.3 million members, but only about 3.6 million have two or more products ( there is probably less than that that fulfill criteria ).

To pay £100 to everyone would have cost them significantly more ( five times at least ) or they could have given every one £20.... 

Hantsboy1

Are you suggesting that they decided on a figure of £100 then fixed the criteria to limit the payout? They could have chosen many other criteria that would have been fairer to longer standing members.  Or simply increased their rates, as the Parliamentary Committee was hinting at.

Section62

DE_612183 said:

Nationwide have 16.3 million members, but only about 3.6 million have two or more products ( there is probably less than that that fulfill criteria ).

To pay £100 to everyone would have cost them significantly more ( five times at least ) or they could have given every one £20.... 

Of course, those are two basic facts.

It doesn't alter whether or not what Nationwide have decided to do is fair way to distribute £340m between 16.3m members.

I also noticed the 3.6m figure this morning.... surprising so few members have more than one Nationwide product.

It also implies there's only ~200,000 members who have two products (or more) but failed to meet one of the funding criteria.