£100 payment - Nationwide Fairer Share

ForumUser7

overspender22 said:

I made a complaint. Ive held a flexplus account for years and the only criteria I didn’t meet was having a mortgage or qualifying savings account even though the reason I didn’t have one is because I’d tried to apply in app a few months back for a savings account (I have two already), and the app froze so I gave up. 

Complaint handler didn’t ring me, or discuss in any way. They literally just sent a final response cut and paste. 

Will FOS even entertain the complaint given the statement they put out (which I think is pure laziness)

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news-events/complaints-nationwides-fairer-share-payment-scheme “ or that there is an issue with your account which has prevented you from meeting the eligibility criteria, we may be able to help.” 

Though you’d probably need to evidence that you tried to apply multiple times and sought support when the app ‘froze’ and wouldn’t continue.

Section62

Nationwide AGM results published -  none of the resolutions got less than a 95% 'For' vote.  All Directors re-elected with 96% or more of the vote.

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about-us/governance-reports-and-results/agm-results/

GingerTim

Section62 said:

Nationwide AGM results published -  none of the resolutions got less than a 95% 'For' vote.  All Directors re-elected with 96% or more of the vote.

https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about-us/governance-reports-and-results/agm-results/

And with an increased percentage for every 'For' vote compared to 2022.

adonis

Did anyone watch the AGM, one chap said he had a lot of money saved  with them but because he didn't have a  current account he didn't qualify for the fairer share payment so they told him to open a current account for next year.

Nationwide said they passed on 55% of interest rate rises to savers, whoopdy doo, what about the other 45% did that go to the directors?

DS_MSE

This Year's AGM Results - 2023 in Full  (https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about-us/governance-reports-and-results/agm-results/) ... 

Although Nationwide appear to have Taken Down / Replaced the 2022 AGM Results on their Website a copy of these can still be viewed and compared on Page 31 of this Forum Thread.

DS_MSE

Whilst I wasn’t expecting a ‘Major Upset’ I had thought that - with potentially 12.9M excluded Members from Nationwide’s so called ‘Fairer Share’ Distribution, the fact that on average only 530,000 Members Voted on each Resolution last year but perhaps most importantly - the strength of opinion voiced both in this Forum and elsewhere, this might have been reflected in the AGM Results this year - but somewhat surprisingly it didn’t even appear to make a ‘dent’ !

Although its difficult to compare the results of the various resolutions line by line if you just take the two elements that featured in many Forum Members comments -

• Approving the Director’s Remuneration Report
• The Election or Re-Election of Directors (Calculated on Average Results for all Nominees)

These both reveal very little change or movement and in fact the total number and percentage of those voting against the Directors Remuneration Package actually fell, whilst the average number of votes and proportion of those voting against Electing or Re-Electing the Proposed Directors was in fact almost identical to last year with little change in either the number of votes cast and those that were Withheld.

N.B. Figures relating to the Election or Re-Election of Directors calculated as an Average from the Total Votes Cast for all nominees in each Vote.

boingy

DS_MSE said:

Whilst I wasn’t expecting a ‘Major Upset’ I had thought that - with potentially 12.9M excluded Members from Nationwide’s so called ‘Fairer Share’ Distribution, the fact that on average only 530,000 Members Voted on each Resolution last year but perhaps most importantly - the strength of opinion voiced both in this Forum and elsewhere, this might have been reflected in the AGM Results this year - but somewhat surprisingly it didn’t even appear to make a ‘dent’ !

Although its difficult to compare the results of the various resolutions line by line if you just take the two elements that featured in many Forum Members comments -

• Approving the Director’s Remuneration Report
• The Election or Re-Election of Directors (Calculated on Average Results for all Nominees)

These both reveal very little change or movement and in fact the total number and percentage of those voting against the Directors Remuneration Package actually fell, whilst the average number of votes and proportion of those voting against Electing or Re-Electing the Proposed Directors was in fact almost identical to last year with little change in either the number of votes cast and those that were Withheld.

N.B. Figures relating to the Election or Re-Election of Directors calculated as an Average from the Total Votes Cast for all nominees in each Vote.

The fact is that most people don't bother to vote and almost all of those that do are predisposed to tick the box that hands their proxy vote to the meeting chair. 
And most of the members who were excluded from the Fairer Share don't know that they were excluded.

There are only a few ways you could make a dent in the voting:
1. A social media campaign that goes viral.
2. A front page tabloid campaign. 
3. Someone like Martyn Lewis campaigning on his TV program and beyond. 

And even then the protest votes would only be a few percent higher than the published ones.

Section62

boingy said:

DS_MSE said:

....Whilst I wasn’t expecting a ‘Major Upset’ I had thought that - with potentially 12.9M excluded Members from Nationwide’s so called ‘Fairer Share’ Distribution, the fact that on average only 530,000 Members Voted on each Resolution last year but perhaps most importantly - the strength of opinion voiced both in this Forum and elsewhere, this might have been reflected in the AGM Results this year - but somewhat surprisingly it didn’t even appear to make a ‘dent’ !....

The fact is that most people don't bother to vote and almost all of those that do are predisposed to tick the box that hands their proxy vote to the meeting chair. 
And most of the members who were excluded from the Fairer Share don't know that they were excluded.

There are only a few ways you could make a dent in the voting:
1. A social media campaign that goes viral.
2. A front page tabloid campaign. 
3. Someone like Martyn Lewis campaigning on his TV program and beyond. 

And even then the protest votes would only be a few percent higher than the published ones.

As I suggested way back on page 13, anything resembling a 'shareholder revolt' is almost impossible to achieve in Nationwide's case because of the particular approach they take to mutuality and the democratic process.  The senior management are more or less free to do what they want (within the bounds of the law and regulation) and there isn't much the membership can do about it.

Everyone assumes that because Nationwide is a 'mutual' it must be doing the right thing by members.  Not all members believe that though.

friolento

Don't most disgruntled Nationwide members have a far more powerful way to voice their dismay than voting at an AGM? Unless they are tied to a mortgage or a other loan to Nationwide, it will be easy for them to take their business elsewhere, won't it? Nationwide would soon wake up if there was a mass customer exodus, I am sure.

Zanderman

lcooper said:

Don't most disgruntled Nationwide members have a far more powerful way to voice their dismay than voting at an AGM? Unless they are tied to a mortgage or a other loan to Nationwide, it will be easy for them to take their business elsewhere, won't it? Nationwide would soon wake up if there was a mass customer exodus, I am sure.

That's very unlikely to a) happen or b) make a difference if it did.

As boingy points out a few post above, most people don't bother to object to anything and many are unaware there's anything to object to. So without a massive awareness campaign there would be little take-up of a mass exodus.

And even if there was, unless it was a really massive disinvestment, which is unlikely, it would make little difference.

Voting, if done strategically and in vast numbers, would have more effect as it specifically makes a point. Though even that, as pointed out many times in this thread, is unlikely to change immediate outcomes. It could put across messages though and could change future outcomes. A campaign to actually vote would, if successful, have more impact (well, a little at least) than a campaign to simply leave.