Nationwide's 'Fairer Share' £100 payment for eligible members

boingy

Hugh_Isthis said:

Selective Mutuality – an Oxymoron
I am 75 years old. I had an account with the Co-operative Permanent Building Society which became Nationwide after a 1970 name change. I had my mortgage with Nationwide. I rejected a group of member’s proposal to privatise in the late 90s. I am now informed that I do not qualify for the £100 "Fairer Share Payment" because I haven't "paid in a minimum of £500 for at least 2 of the months between 01.01.2023 and 31.03.2023" to my Flex account. This in spite of me transferring in a very large sum in Sept 2022 with part out in January 2023. So much for over 50 years of loyal membership. I currently have a substantial sum in a Nationwide savings account but believe me it won't be there for long. I'll leave just £1 so I can vote for removal of directors at the next AGM (Rather underhand of them to confirm Fairer Share eligibility AFTER the last AGM). I'm now thinking I made a big mistake not voting for privatisation back in the 90s rather than the "Selective Mutuality" that the current board has decided on. How can this comply with Nationwide's Customer Charter?

In their own words Nationwide are rewarding "those members who have a deeper relationship with us". Mutuality at its best  
 

Beddie

Hugh_Isthis said:

Selective Mutuality – an Oxymoron
I am 75 years old. I had an account with the Co-operative Permanent Building Society which became Nationwide after a 1970 name change. I had my mortgage with Nationwide. I rejected a group of member’s proposal to privatise in the late 90s. I am now informed that I do not qualify for the £100 "Fairer Share Payment" because I haven't "paid in a minimum of £500 for at least 2 of the months between 01.01.2023 and 31.03.2023" to my Flex account. This in spite of me transferring in a very large sum in Sept 2022 with part out in January 2023. So much for over 50 years of loyal membership. I currently have a substantial sum in a Nationwide savings account but believe me it won't be there for long. I'll leave just £1 so I can vote for removal of directors at the next AGM (Rather underhand of them to confirm Fairer Share eligibility AFTER the last AGM). I'm now thinking I made a big mistake not voting for privatisation back in the 90s rather than the "Selective Mutuality" that the current board has decided on. How can this comply with Nationwide's Customer Charter?

It's £100. Do you need it? Would it make any difference to your life whatsoever? Of course not. Instead of feeling so hard done by, be happy for those who are getting it and think of the many things you have done well out of in your 75 years. 

xylophone

Would it make any difference to your life whatsoever? 

Whether it would or wouldn't is not germane to the issue.

Either all members are equal or they are not.

Or in Orwell's immortal phrase, are some "more equal than others"?

Section62

Beddie said:

xylophone said:

Would it make any difference to your life whatsoever? 

Whether it would or wouldn't is not germane to the issue.

Either all members are equal or they are not.

Or in Orwell's immortal phrase, are some "more equal than others"?

Members are not all equal, who said that they were?

I've been with Nationwide since 1987, but didn't fit the criteria and didn't get the £100. Shrug of the shoulders and on with my day, it's just so inconsequential. I don't feel hard done by, discriminated against or anything else. People shouting "but it's so unfair!" sound like a loser in a playground game, perhaps they should take their ball home.

If only you had opted to do that, rather than feeling the need to post on this thread insulting other forum members.

If it is so inconsequential, why the need to criticise other Nationwide members who feel this approach is not a fair way of distributing assets?

Nobody is "shouting 'but it's so unfair!'" - people are putting forward their opinions which they are entitled to do as co-owners of Nationwide Building Society.

Beddie

Section62 said:

Beddie said:

xylophone said:

Would it make any difference to your life whatsoever? 

Whether it would or wouldn't is not germane to the issue.

Either all members are equal or they are not.

Or in Orwell's immortal phrase, are some "more equal than others"?

Members are not all equal, who said that they were?

I've been with Nationwide since 1987, but didn't fit the criteria and didn't get the £100. Shrug of the shoulders and on with my day, it's just so inconsequential. I don't feel hard done by, discriminated against or anything else. People shouting "but it's so unfair!" sound like a loser in a playground game, perhaps they should take their ball home.

If only you had opted to do that, rather than feeling the need to post on this thread insulting other forum members.

If it is so inconsequential, why the need to criticise other Nationwide members who feel this approach is not a fair way of distributing assets?

Nobody is "shouting 'but it's so unfair!'" - people are putting forward their opinions which they are entitled to do as co-owners of Nationwide Building Society.

I edited my post, but you'd already quoted it so it was too late. Note that my reaction was to someone criticizing my earlier opinion, so was just passing it along. Not saying that was the right thing to do, but then I so often get things wrong online I would probably do best to shut up. Apologies for any offence caused.

Chayes17

I lodged a complaint about their criteria and was delighted that their reply was that they’re only rewarding those that they have a ‘deep connection’ with. It’s obvious they believe that someone who is a serial switcher and likely to be with them only a few months, has a deeper relationship than someone who has been with them 12 years. Needless to say, after their well aimed insult, I started a switch that night. Now we have NO relationship 

Hugh_Isthis

Yes and I've transferred out 44k leaving £100 for my AGM action next year

metrobus

Hugh_Isthis said:

Yes and I've transferred out 44k leaving £100 for my AGM action next year

£44k in a NW instant access account 😂😂😂😂

kaMelo

All these post from people now moving significant sums of money from Nationwide due to not meeting the Fairer Share criteria should be thanking Nationwide for giving them the impetus to seek a much better return on their money, probably greater than the £100 they didn't receive from Nationwide.

Section62

kaMelo said:

All these post from people now moving significant sums of money from Nationwide due to not meeting the Fairer Share criteria should be thanking Nationwide for giving them the impetus to seek a much better return on their money, probably greater than the £100 they didn't receive from Nationwide.

If Nationwide had avoided making this excess profit and instead had distributed it in the form of more attractive products then the members could have had a greater return without having to take their money elsewhere... and who knows, some might have opened products they hadn't considered before, thereby "deepening their relationship" with Nationwide.  Win-win.

Instead Nationwide are losing goodwill of a significant proportion of members, who individually have missed out on their 'Fairer share' of Nationwide profits. Lose-lose.

And it feels a bit like gaslighting.... 'Nationwide have done you a favour by treating you unfairly'.  I get your point, but doubt that Nationwide would feel proud to be seen to be doing that.