NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY

Wynn2022

I went to the Nationwide Building Society on 1st November 2023 to transfer my old existing Nationwide cash ISA to a 5% 2-year fixed rate cash ISA with no additional funds being added or any removed. I have been a member of Nationwide since the 1980’s.

I was asked my income, this I considered to be an unnecessary intrusive request and refused, I was informed this was a regulatory requirement. I again refused as I had not had this request from another building society. This demand was reiterated by the branch manager. Again, I refused and left.

I wrote to the Nationwide CEO and expected that I would be informed that this was a mistake but was informed that it is a regulatory requirement.

I also wrote to my MP who informed me that “It is incorrect to say that this is a Government regulatory requirement in the circumstances as you have described them”.

I again wrote to Nationwide quoting my MP’S statement, again they have stated that they stand by their original decision.

I am unable to transfer this ISA to another society as my other ISA is fixed with no additional funds to be added permitted.

I also asked Nationwide and my MP how Nationwide could check this information, if they had access to Inland Revenue records, neither replied to that question.

While I have always believed, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. However, I consider this to be unnecessary intrusion and data harvesting. It also concerns me how secure their system is with continual news reports of information being hacked. While I cannot see how my income would be of interest to anyone, I do not see why I should have to reveal it unnecessarily. I also feel that many elderly and sensitive people would find such a question intimidating and concerning.

Who is correct Nationwide or my MP, is there regulation requiring them to request income for a minor transaction?

Should Nationwide be allowed to harvest unnecessary data or are they abusing their position?

How can they check my income?

What other unnecessary intrusive questions will they be asking in the future using regulation as an excuse?

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Reed_Richards

Wynn2022 said:

I am unable to transfer this ISA to another society as my other ISA is fixed with no additional funds to be added permitted.

This cannot be true.  You can transfer your ISA to any other ISA that accepts transfers in provided by any other financial institution.  The condition of other ISAs you hold has no effect and is irrelevant.  If the ISA you want to transfer is fixed then you can still transfer it but there will be a penalty charge.

Vote with your feet!   

Section62

Wynn2022 said:

I went to the Nationwide Building Society on 1st November 2023 to transfer my old existing Nationwide cash ISA to a 5% 2-year fixed rate cash ISA with no additional funds being added or any removed. I have been a member of Nationwide since the 1980’s.

I was asked my income, this I considered to be an unnecessary intrusive request and refused, I was informed this was a regulatory requirement. I again refused as I had not had this request from another building society. This demand was reiterated by the branch manager. Again, I refused and left.

I wrote to the Nationwide CEO and expected that I would be informed that this was a mistake but was informed that it is a regulatory requirement.

I also wrote to my MP who informed me that “It is incorrect to say that this is a Government regulatory requirement in the circumstances as you have described them”.

...

There are things worth arguing about, and others to just let go.  This is one of the latter.

(Both NW and the MP are almost certainly correct.  There is no specific Government requirement for Nationwide to ask you how much income you have, but as part of KYC they need to have a picture of who you are.  How they achieve KYC is largely down to them)

mebu60

You can provide an incorrect figure if it would make you feel better.

flaneurs_lobster

What an utter waste of your time and NW's. Give it up mate, I like a good scrap on a point of principle too but make it about something that's worth arguing about.

If you don't like Nationwide's ways of doing business then move your custom elsewhere. I'm sure they'll be sad to see you go.

Kim_13

Reed_Richards said:

Wynn2022 said:

I am unable to transfer this ISA to another society as my other ISA is fixed with no additional funds to be added permitted.

This cannot be true.  You can transfer your ISA to any other ISA that accepts transfers in provided by any other financial institution.  The condition of other ISAs you hold has no effect and is irrelevant.  If the ISA you want to transfer is fixed then you can still transfer it but there will be a penalty charge.

Vote with your feet!   

Exactly this - the only way someone would need to stick with Nationwide would be if they had funded a fixed ISA in that tax year and didn’t want to pay a penalty - since (in this FY) you cannot place the remainder of your ISA allowance with another Cash ISA provider. Perhaps the OP could confirm if this is the quandary they’re in?

Nationwide aren’t the only provider to ask that question. As anti money laundering type question, there’s a kind of logic there - but then there are always going to be those with minimal living expenses/savings elsewhere that could perfectly legitimately subscribe more than would be expected for their level of income. And it is a little bizarre that they say that what you put won’t affect the outcome of your application - surely it has to, otherwise there’s no point in asking. If it’s just to make sure that the information they hold on you is up to date, they should say so. All current account applications ask it, and perhaps as a current account provider that’s the approach they’ve chosen.

Middle_of_the_Road

If it's just a question which requires a number without proof provided, why not just humour them with any figure you see fit. It's really not worth making a big fuss over. My income varies from month to month, year to year, so any figures I provide is pretty meaningless.

eskbanker

Middle_of_the_Road said:

If it's just a question which requires a number without proof provided, why not just humour them with any figure you see fit. It's really not worth making a big fuss over. My income varies from month to month, year to year, so any figures I provide is pretty meaningless.

It's important to be consistent though - anyone using different figures for declared income across multiple applications runs the risk of discrepancies being flagged in anti-fraud databases such as National Hunter, which can have painful consequences if deemed to be outside reasonable tolerances....

IanManc

flaneurs_lobster said:

What an utter waste of your time and NW's. Give it up mate, I like a good scrap on a point of principle too but make it about something that's worth arguing about.

If you don't like Nationwide's ways of doing business then move your custom elsewhere. I'm sure they'll be sad to see you go.

It is also a complete waste of the MP's time and the time of their staff.

I worked in an MP's office for a while, and I remember in the first hour of the first morning I was there I got the following to deal with:

A woman in despair because she had been battered by her partner during the previous night. She's been offered a place in a refuge but couldn't take her autistic adult son with her because he was male and over 18 and she wouldn't leave him with his volatile drunken father on his own, and because she had "refused accommodation" she had nowhere to turn.

A mother ringing because her son was in custody and she couldn't get the police custody sergeant to understand that if her son didn't get his medication for a serious eye condition within the next hour or so then he could go blind.

A visit from a distressed asylum seeker who was being robbed by the other asylum seekers in his allocated accommodation and didn't know who to turn to.

A call from an ongoing client with a mould issue in his housing association flat whose problem was being ignored by his landlord, telling me that the ceiling in his children's bedroom had collapsed in the night.

This was a few years ago, and the experience of having to firefight such serious issues day after day is scarring. I can't imagine that the workload has eased in the meantime.

I can't describe the exasperation with which we would have regarded someone complaining to their MP because their building society had made a polite enquiry about their income.

flaneurs_lobster

eskbanker said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

If it's just a question which requires a number without proof provided, why not just humour them with any figure you see fit. It's really not worth making a big fuss over. My income varies from month to month, year to year, so any figures I provide is pretty meaningless.

It's important to be consistent though - anyone using different figures for declared income across multiple applications runs the risk of discrepancies being flagged in anti-fraud databases such as National Hunter, which can have painful consequences if deemed to be outside reasonable tolerances....

I'm going to suffer because of this. I've just filled out a couple of applications that inquired of my annual income. Just hit 66 and 5 pensions have kicked in within the last 2 months. My annual income has increased six-fold.

Middle_of_the_Road

eskbanker said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

If it's just a question which requires a number without proof provided, why not just humour them with any figure you see fit. It's really not worth making a big fuss over. My income varies from month to month, year to year, so any figures I provide is pretty meaningless.

It's important to be consistent though - anyone using different figures for declared income across multiple applications runs the risk of discrepancies being flagged in anti-fraud databases such as National Hunter, which can have painful consequences if deemed to be outside reasonable tolerances....

I'm sure many peoples income declarations will be variable over time, due to promotions, change of jobs, redundancy or retirement etc.
If these declarations are monitored to determine fraud, they would need to apply more parameters to define 'reasonable tolerances'.....