£100 payment - Nationwide Fairer Share

boingy

There have been so many complaints to the FOS that they have put up a special web page:

Complaints about Nationwide’s Fairer Share Payment scheme (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

My neighbour (perhaps egged on by me) did take his complaint to the FOS and it was rejected because, and I quote, 
"Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints."

So banks can apparently dictate to the ombudsman what their powers are! Astonishing. 

Deneb

I complained to NW on the basis that they claim to be distributing the fairer share payment to the members who they have the deepest banking relationship with. We have three current accounts that we have held for over 20 years - over 25 for one of them. We have previously had savings and a mortgage with them at various times, but not presently. We do not qualify, yet someone who had opened a current account and a savings account a few weeks before the payment was announced, does.

They rejected the complaint, so I now know how they feel about the depth of our relationship.

I have voted against every resolution at their AGM, and am in the process of transferring our main account to Santander, where I calculate we will get over £40/month from Edge Up after the account fee. I may keep one NW account open and open a savings account with a couple of quid in it, just in case they decide to repeat the exercise in future.

kaMelo

boingy said:

There have been so many complaints to the FOS that they have put up a special web page:

Complaints about Nationwide’s Fairer Share Payment scheme (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

My neighbour (perhaps egged on by me) did take his complaint to the FOS and it was rejected because, and I quote, 
"Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints."

So banks can apparently dictate to the ombudsman what their powers are! Astonishing. 

The financial ombudsman's remit is laid out in law. Correcting a mistake made by the bank is within their remit, ensuring  banks abide by their terms and conditions is within their remit, instructing a bank on what it can or cannot do with their profits is most definitely outside of their remit and unsurprisingly complaints around the fairer share payment being unfair will fail.

boingy

kaMelo said:

boingy said:

There have been so many complaints to the FOS that they have put up a special web page:

Complaints about Nationwide’s Fairer Share Payment scheme (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

My neighbour (perhaps egged on by me) did take his complaint to the FOS and it was rejected because, and I quote, 
"Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints."

So banks can apparently dictate to the ombudsman what their powers are! Astonishing. 

The financial ombudsman's remit is laid out in law. Correcting a mistake made by the bank is within their remit, ensuring  banks abide by their terms and conditions is within their remit, instructing a bank on what it can or cannot do with their profits is most definitely outside of their remit and unsurprisingly complaints around the fairer share payment being unfair will fail.

It was more that strange wording. The FSO should have said to Mike (my neighbour), "We don't have the power to investigate these complaints" rather than "Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints." That makes it sound like they are in the pocket of Nationwide.

And yes, both of us know that his complaint won't get anywhere but he was so furious I couldn't resist egging him on. If the AGM was an in-person meeting rather than a virtual one I think he'd be attending in order to heckle and he's normally quite chilled out about things. Anyway, it's not all bad. This has prodded him to review his accounts and he is currently picking my brains about better homes for his money. I'll suggest he keeps his Nationwide accounts with a few hundred quid in them in the hope of qualifying for a pay-out next year, although it's impossible to know whether they will do it again and what the criteria will be.

Section62

boingy said:

kaMelo said:

boingy said:

There have been so many complaints to the FOS that they have put up a special web page:

Complaints about Nationwide’s Fairer Share Payment scheme (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

My neighbour (perhaps egged on by me) did take his complaint to the FOS and it was rejected because, and I quote, 
"Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints."

So banks can apparently dictate to the ombudsman what their powers are! Astonishing. 

The financial ombudsman's remit is laid out in law. Correcting a mistake made by the bank is within their remit, ensuring  banks abide by their terms and conditions is within their remit, instructing a bank on what it can or cannot do with their profits is most definitely outside of their remit and unsurprisingly complaints around the fairer share payment being unfair will fail.

It was more that strange wording. The FSO should have said to Mike (my neighbour), "We don't have the power to investigate these complaints" rather than "Nationwide doesn’t currently accept we have the power to investigate these complaints." That makes it sound like they are in the pocket of Nationwide.

^This.

What they told 'Mike' isn't consistent with what the FOS website says.

Although probably just because the investigator writing to Mike was keeping up the apparent trend of FOS employees getting things wrong through carelessness or lack of awareness.

Deramore12

scepticOfCheltenham said:

datz said:

pridehappy said:

I believe those who use the society for their everyday banking and savings should be rewarded, not just those who are taking advantage of one or two products, which Nationwide have done. They are actively contributing to the society, and are the ones they interact with most. Plus,
it’s nice to see a bank/building society actually rewarding loyalty, not just for switching!

Except that isn't really the case. The qualifying criteria used are perhaps a bit arbitrary and easy to inadvertently meet - I got the £100 payment just because I have a current account and their (competitive) 'Start to Save' regular saver. I have no loyalty to any financial institution, I will take 'excessive' advantage of any offers available to me, I will use those accounts with the largest returns, and I am unlikely to be significantly profitable to any of them. If this is what 'rewarding loyalty' and 'actively contributing to the society' look like...

HaHa.  You're not supposed to say things like that!!  But it's very true and you're not the only one!

Well  they may have cocked up here.  They have sent out invites to all members indicating that they can vote at the AGM,  but in law ONLY shareholders can vote, that by defintion suggests you are a shareholder and would therefore be entitled to the £100. 

scepticOfCheltenham

Deramore12 said:

Well  they may have cocked up here.  They have sent out invites to all members indicating that they can vote at the AGM,  but in law ONLY shareholders can vote, that by defintion suggests you are a shareholder and would therefore be entitled to the £100. 

The people who have accounts with Nationwide are not shareholders;  they are members.  

Nationwide does (surprisingly) have shareholders; they all seem to be large financial companies who hold special shares in Nationwide.  

As far as I am aware, Nationwide shares do not have any voting rights at the AGM.

Section62

scepticOfCheltenham said:

Deramore12 said:

Well  they may have cocked up here.  They have sent out invites to all members indicating that they can vote at the AGM,  but in law ONLY shareholders can vote, that by defintion suggests you are a shareholder and would therefore be entitled to the £100. 

The people who have accounts with Nationwide are not shareholders;  they are members.  

Nationwide does (surprisingly) have shareholders; they all seem to be large financial companies who hold special shares in Nationwide.  

As far as I am aware, Nationwide shares do not have any voting rights at the AGM.

Voting entitlement is based on being a "Qualified Voting Member".  A "Qualified Voting Member" is defined in the society's Memorandum and Rules.

A "Member" is someone who is either/both an "Investing Member" or a "Borrowing Member".

An "Investing Member" is a Member who has a Share Investment.

A "Share Investment" is defined as such by the T&C's of the account.  Some Nationwide savings accounts are share accounts, some are not.

Therefore if you have an account which is defined as a share account in the T&Cs you are an "Investing Member" and therefore a "Member", and if you meet the further conditions you can be a "Qualified Voting Member".

Nationwide's 'shareholders' are those members holding a "Share Investment", which in general will be individuals with a balance in an account defined as a "Share Investment".

scepticOfCheltenham

Section62 said:

An "Investing Member" is a Member who has a Share Investment.

A "Share Investment" is defined as such by the T&C's of the account.  Some Nationwide savings accounts are share accounts, some are not.

Therefore if you have an account which is defined as a share account in the T&Cs you are an "Investing Member" and therefore a "Member", and if you meet the further conditions you can be a "Qualified Voting Member".

Nationwide's 'shareholders' are those members holding a "Share Investment", which in general will be individuals with a balance in an account defined as a "Share Investment".

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't think Nationwide currently offer any accounts that are classed as "Share Investments".  They were popular with Building Societies some time ago, but I think they are quite rare these days.  Even if Nationwide do still offer such accounts, anyone holding one will (as you say) be a Member but will not be a Shareholder.

The only Shareholders are people or companies who hold actual Shares in Nationwide.  These shares are not ordinary shares and do not have voting rights.  As far as I know, all these shares are held by Investment Companies, but I think it should be possible to buy some of these if you are so inclined, so they may be some individuals who are Shareholders.

We are getting rather off the original topic here, but it does illustrate how far Nationwide has moved from being a traditional building society which used to mutual societies, simply borrowing from and lending to individuals.

wmb194

scepticOfCheltenham said:

Section62 said:

An "Investing Member" is a Member who has a Share Investment.

A "Share Investment" is defined as such by the T&C's of the account.  Some Nationwide savings accounts are share accounts, some are not.

Therefore if you have an account which is defined as a share account in the T&Cs you are an "Investing Member" and therefore a "Member", and if you meet the further conditions you can be a "Qualified Voting Member".

Nationwide's 'shareholders' are those members holding a "Share Investment", which in general will be individuals with a balance in an account defined as a "Share Investment".

The only Shareholders are people or companies who hold actual Shares in Nationwide.  These shares are not ordinary shares and do not have voting rights.  As far as I know, all these shares are held by Investment Companies, but I think it should be possible to buy some of these if you are so inclined, so they may be some individuals who are Shareholders.

You're getting confused. It sounds like you're referring to Permanent Interest Bearing Shares (PIBS) and/or the newer version of these. Similar to preference shares, these are a type of hybrid capital with debt-like characteristics (they pay a coupon) but also provide loss absorbing capital to a business but, as you write, don't convey ownership or voting rights. The people and institutions owning these do not become the owners or shareholders of Nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_interest_bearing_shares#:~:text=In%20finance%2C%20permanent%20interest%20bearing,limited%20companies%20use%20preference%20shares.