Nationwide Fairer Share Payment 2024

2013yearofthehouse

Nebulous2 said:

It's a high enough bar to have excluded many people. 16 million members and 3.8million payments. 

They've relaxed the rules this time. Last time I was under the £500 in one of the necessary months. In one of the other months I paid in £10k. (Not that I'm bitter or anything) This time you only need to meet the rules in two out of three months. 

@Nebulous2

Last year, you did only have to meet the rules in two out of three months, so that actually hasn’t changed this time. 

Although, what they have changed this year is to add a completely different way of qualifying as an additional alternative to exactly the same way they had last year. This year, you can now qualify by making 10 or more payments out of your account in two out of the three months (with no requirement to pay in any money at all in any month). 

(Both screenshots I’ve posted are from the T&Cs on the Nationwide website) 

Ocelot

I was surprised to see I qualified for the payment this year. I didn't last year, and nothing has changed.

Poquito

steven141 said:

Poquito said:

steven141 said:

Poquito said:

WillPS said:

My notification is showing up now. £100 payment, thankee Nationwide!

It does seem like they're positioning this as less of a one off and more of an ongoing benefit to members now, not that there's anything which would force them to make future payments.

Yes, I had assumed last year when I received the fairer share payment that it was a one off. To see the notification today that I was eligible again has made my day! Off to do the switch now to hopefully secure £200… it’s perfectly timed to switch out the recently paid out Santander Everyday account which has 2 dd’s. Happy days.

If you are eligible for the £100 you aren’t eligible for the £200 payment apparently. 

I haven’t seen this information anywhere, could you post it please. It specified a date in which you couldn’t have received a previous incentive. The switch incentive is only available to eligible members not new customers so I would have thought you could benefit from both. 

Sorry I misread it this morning. I think that you will still be eligible as long as you haven’t had a switch incentive since before 2021. 

That’s ok, no worries, don’t apologise. 😊 I’ve not had an incentive so have hopped on this one today. Was definitely surprised it doesn’t stipulate any funds going in… just the dds… I’m hoping I’m able to benefit from the Flexdirect interest rate. I’ve had it before years ago but from recent switches it’s apparent they don’t always check…

Fingerbobs

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

eskbanker

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

Fingerbobs

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

I'm saying the qualifying criteria are unfair, not the thresholds they've set. Basing it on a pay-in threshold is inherently unfair, as it penalises people who may be long-term members who make a lot of use of the accounts, but just happened to be under the thresholds at that particular time. 

eskbanker

Fingerbobs said:

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

I'm saying the qualifying criteria are unfair, not the thresholds they've set. It shouldn't be based on a pay-in threshold at all. 

They have to have some eligibility rules in place, when choosing to reward some but not others (or do you think anyone with any Nationwide account should get the payment, which would then be much smaller of course?), but it's a stick-on certainty that some of those who miss out will complain that they're unfair, perhaps unsurprising given the name of the incentive!

No doubt this thread will go the way of last year's, where there'll be page after page of biased opinions about alternative ways of calibrating it....

Fingerbobs

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

As usual, the comment that completely misses my entire point gets the thanks! This forum is ridiculous. 

eskbanker

Fingerbobs said:

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

As usual, the comment that completely misses my entire point gets the thanks! This forum is ridiculous. 

I make no apologies for missing your point, which IMHO wasn't explained well enough - the clear implication was that missing out by a few quid was what you considered to be unfair, but now you've clarified that you meant the principle of having thresholds at all was unfair, I've answered that....

Fingerbobs

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

eskbanker said:

Fingerbobs said:

I didn't qualify this year. I was just short of the £500 pay-in in Jan and Feb by a few quid. As a pretty-much life-long account holder, this seems very unfair. 

How much leeway do you think they should offer (£499? £450? £400? £300?), and why would it be fairer to do that?

I'm saying the qualifying criteria are unfair, not the thresholds they've set. It shouldn't be based on a pay-in threshold at all. 

They have to have some eligibility rules in place, when choosing to reward some but not others (or do you think anyone with any Nationwide account should get the payment, which would then be much smaller of course?), but it's a stick-on certainty that some of those who miss out will complain that they're unfair, perhaps unsurprising given the name of the incentive!

No doubt this thread will go the way of last year's, where there'll be page after page of biased opinions about alternative ways of calibrating it....

I think that is my gripe - they've used the word "fair" in the name of the payment, when the way they've determined eligibility is (in my view) unfair. It may be that there is no truly "fair" was of doing this, in which case, don't call it a "fairer share" payment. 

Edit: I should add that I qualified by lucky chance last year, when probably other members who were far more deserving of the payment missed out.