Nationwide..Not Eligible for £100.00

Band7

Kenrw8 said:

I wasn't consulted, I'm a flex account  member for nearly thirty years also mortgage for 20 years paid off 2 years ago. And not eligible because I've neither a Saving account or Mortgage for the required period Match 23.

Phoned them and lodge a complaint, should from complaints team within 5 workings.

If I don't I'll move to another bank for a cashback.

Why didn't you move/switch from Nationwide to elsewhere some time ago? Not that you would even have to give up your longstanding FlexAccount for that.....................

What is your rationale for why you should be a beneficiary of the Nationwide profits made in the last 12 months?

kaMelo

I've stayed away from all the "Nationwide are unfair/misguided/evil etc" threads as it's clear nothing they can do will make everyone happy and I do have sympathy with some people's position.

However, the single biggest thing a member can do is not to complain but to vote at the AGM of any mutual.
Vote down the directors remuneration policy, it might not prevent it happening but a majority "No" vote would certainly cause a shockwave. Sadly turnout is usually between 10 to 15% of eligible members and the annual report gets voted through with 90%+ majority, so they keep on doing what their doing as, in the directors eye, 90%+ of the societies members think their doing a great job.

TheBanker

kaMelo said:

I've stayed away from all the "Nationwide are unfair/misguided/evil etc" threads as it's clear nothing they can do will make everyone happy and I do have sympathy with some people's position.

However, the single biggest thing a member can do is not to complain but to vote at the AGM of any mutual.
Vote down the directors remuneration policy, it might not prevent it happening but a majority "No" vote would certainly cause a shockwave. Sadly turnout is usually between 10 to 15% of eligible members and the annual report gets voted through with 90%+ majority, so they keep on doing what their doing as, in the directors eye, 90%+ of the societies members think their doing a great job.

Well that's because they encourage members to vote by making a donation to charity for everyone who does... and helpfully the easiest way to vote is to tick that you are in favour of all Direcrors resolutions.

Section62

kaMelo said:

However, the single biggest thing a member can do is not to complain but to vote at the AGM of any mutual.
Vote down the directors remuneration policy, it might not prevent it happening but a majority "No" vote would certainly cause a shockwave. Sadly turnout is usually between 10 to 15% of eligible members and the annual report gets voted through with 90%+ majority, so they keep on doing what their doing as, in the directors eye, 90%+ of the societies members think their doing a great job.

There is more chance* of Nationwide bunging £100 to each person who complains (to shut them up) than there is of a "majority 'No' vote".  The AGM voting arrangements are stacked against anything but a ringing endorsement of the Board's views.

Nevertheless, people should still think about using their AGM vote (whether 'for' or 'against') because only a more active membership will lead to a situation where the Board and senior management team start to take more notice of what the membership thinks.  While apathy is in the majority, the views of members can be safely ignored.

*Albeit still equating to roughly "zero".

kaMelo

How is a vote stacked against individual members? It's not like a PLC with a large block of institutional shareholders.

But you are correct that apathy will prevail as a majority just can't be bothered to vote.

Section62

kaMelo said:

How is a vote stacked against individual members? It's not like a PLC with a large block of institutional shareholders.

It is virtually impossible for individual members to get a resolution considered at the AGM.

(Even if they could get the required member support for a resolution, the time lag renders it more or less pointless.  E.g. A resolution for this year's AGM had to be submitted before 4th April - a resolution against paying 20% of the membership £340m this June wouldn't be considered at an AGM before the Summer of 2024, by which time 2024's payment would be confirmed already.)

The AGM voting arrangements provide a 'quick vote' option to accept the Board's recommendations, but not a 'quick vote' option to reject them all.

Providing incentives - such as a donation to charity - encourages voting by people would would othewise be apathetic.  IMV it is more likely apathetic people will use the one 'quick vote' button available, rather than work their way through all the resolutions individually.

So, 1) there's not really anything substantive to vote against (i.e. as a protest vote), 2) it is really easy to vote in support of the Board's recommendations, 3) History suggests something like 95% support, which encourages apathy ("my vote won't make a difference either way").

The AGM costs a lot to do, but doesn't really achieve much.

DS_MSE

          

kaMelo

Section62 said:

kaMelo said:

How is a vote stacked against individual members? It's not like a PLC with a large block of institutional shareholders.

It is virtually impossible for individual members to get a resolution considered at the AGM.

(Even if they could get the required member support for a resolution, the time lag renders it more or less pointless.  E.g. A resolution for this year's AGM had to be submitted before 4th April - a resolution against paying 20% of the membership £340m this June wouldn't be considered at an AGM before the Summer of 2024, by which time 2024's payment would be confirmed already.)

The AGM voting arrangements provide a 'quick vote' option to accept the Board's recommendations, but not a 'quick vote' option to reject them all.

Providing incentives - such as a donation to charity - encourages voting by people would would othewise be apathetic.  IMV it is more likely apathetic people will use the one 'quick vote' button available, rather than work their way through all the resolutions individually.

So, 1) there's not really anything substantive to vote against (i.e. as a protest vote), 2) it is really easy to vote in support of the Board's recommendations, 3) History suggests something like 95% support, which encourages apathy ("my vote won't make a difference either way").

The AGM costs a lot to do, but doesn't really achieve much.

Whilst I agree it's difficult to get a resolution debated at an AGM there is always a way to get the boards attention, vote against the directors remuneration.

A majority against vote would cause major repercussions, essentially saying the members have no confidence in the board.

However, as you alluded to, apathy reigns supreme. People are happy to vent on a forum yet can't be bothered to do the thing that can make a difference. 

Ryan_Holden

All this fuss over £100.

If you're that bothered, vote with your feet. Natwest will pay you £200 and do all the switch work for you at the moment as long as you dump (I think) £1500 in the account after you move.

Double your loss, and shows NatWide you aren't happy.

ForumUser7

DS_MSE said:

          

I haven’t got my email yet