VOTE now! Proposed take over of Virgin Money - Nationwide members should be given a vote

avenue12

artyboy said:

I'm suddenly concerned for the long term safety of the £100 I've had in my carpetbagging membership account with them for the past 35 years...





(No, I'm not. Really, I'm not...)

ha! me too lousy rates anyway. We made tens of thousands from deneutualisation of building societies and life companies!

avenue12

SonOfPearl said:

The merits or otherwise of Nationwide's product offerings are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Others here have patiently explained (in this thread and the previous similar one) why a member vote on the issue is highly unlikely to be possible let alone desirable. Being a mutual organisation does not mean the members (including me) are entitled to second guess complicated business decisions such as these. Any such vote would be utterly pointless. 

no it would be voted down as against member/owners interests as loads of financial experts are saying everywhere.

Section62

masonic said:

26left said:

eskbanker said:

masonic said:

The latest update from the campaign was added to the petition site two days ago

I've not been checking the main petition page very regularly, but are you of the opinion the comment following "Latest news" was posted there two days ago (i.e. 5 days after Nationwide promised to respond once they had considered the matter fully)?

I'd assumed that this update would have been a reaction to some further comment from Nationwide that they would not be responding. In the absence of such a further response, and as has been pointed out above, the "Latest news" would appear to meet the test for defamation, especially as it is coupled with a call for what amounts to a boycott.

My original generous interpretation was the "Latest news" was hot off the press following a response from Nationwide e.g. yesterday.

See "Streisand effect".

Also worth noting in passing that various posts on this forum probably also meet the test for potential defamation, but weren't called out as such.

Section62

IvanOpinion said:

friolento said:

masonic said:

masonic said:

Any update from Nationwide on progress towards a SGM? Confirmation that there were 500 qualifying members among the signatories? Cheque paid in? Anything?

To answer my own question, now on the petition site...

WOW, that'll teach'em

Incredibly childish, as adults would say, it is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

As others have pointed out - even some of those who don't support the vote - moving savings elsewhere is possibly beneficial from a MSE point of view and as such "cutting your nose off to spite your face" is dependent on whether each individual will get better rates elsewhere.

Malthusian

If Nationwide has in fact received the necessary signatories and cheque for an SGM but is ignoring its rules, then the next step is surely court action to force the company to comply with its own constitution. That is what the civil courts are for.

"Withdraw everything but £100" is a smoke bomb to cover retreat. It's running away while shouting that you're coming back with your big brother. When nothing happens you can say "well I guess all the other Nationwide members are happy being sheeple".

I am not saying they should sue. To me this is a classic example that, as in kickboxing, voting with your feet is more powerful than voting with your hands. I just find petty legal dramas interesting.

masonic said:

I'd assumed that this update would have been a reaction to some further comment from Nationwide that they would not be responding. In the absence of such a further response, and as has been pointed out above, the "Latest news" would appear to meet the test for defamation, especially as it is coupled with a call for what amounts to a boycott.

Do you think that the assertion that Nationwide has ignored the petition (assuming it is false and Nationwide is still considering their response) meets the "serious harm" test?

As we all know, a claim for defamation in the UK can only succeed if it "has caused or is likely to cause serious financial harm", and for corporate claimants like Nationwide, "serious harm" is replaced with "serious financial loss".

So a defamation claim dies immediately unless lots of people actually do move their deposits out of Nationwide apart from the £100 minimum in response to the (allegedly false) claim their petition is being ignored. The onus would be on Nationwide to prove that happened. Nationwide have 16 million customers so even if every single one of the 1,500 petitioners drains their accounts to the minimum, that won't meet the definition of "serious harm". 

And if Nationwide do actually get seriously hit in the pocket by a customer exodus, then it is a misjudgement on their part to try to bulldoze through the merger.

eskbanker

26left said:

eskbanker said:

masonic said:

masonic said:

Any update from Nationwide on progress towards a SGM? Confirmation that there were 500 qualifying members among the signatories? Cheque paid in? Anything?

To answer my own question, now on the petition site...

It seems odd that there's no actual support (that I could find) for the assertion that "Nationwide is now going to ignore the petition" within the campaign site itself, where it's simply stated yesterday that:

The Society Secretary replied to say he “will respond once I have considered your questions fully” but Nationwide has still not posted notice of a SGM, or explained the delay in doing so.

Obviously those running the petition/campaign will be privy to more information about current status than the rest of us but to me there's a significant difference between "Nationwide has still not posted notice of a SGM" and "Nationwide is now going to ignore the petition", the latter having clear connotations of a deliberate and conscious decision.

The 'withdraw all but £100' exhortation started the day after the petition was delivered, as discussed on here at the time:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80723204/#Comment_80723204

The latest update from the campaign was added to the petition site two days ago
https://www.change.org/p/give-nationwide-members-a-say-on-the-purchase-of-virgin-money/u/32518486

From what I can tell from the above page and the campaign website below (which has filled out quite a bit now - see press articles at the bottom), the recent time line is this:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/

Not sure you quite grasped the point I was making which is essentially: has there been any actual messaging to the campaign from Nationwide that would support the allegation that they're "now going to ignore the petition", which is clearly much more accusatory than something more like 'we still haven't heard back yet'?

If so, then I'd have expected it to be shared on the main campaign site, which appears to be regularly updated, whereas I can only find the wording in the brief update on the petition site, which would seem an odd way of choosing to communicate with the campaigners, who presumably long since signed the petition....

Section62

I think Nationwide's senior management team might be getting a little nervous.

eskbanker

Section62 said:

I think Nationwide's senior management team might be getting a little nervous.

Based on....?

WillPS

Presumably the fact there's a hearing tomorrow which will essentially decide if this is a done deal or it'll take a little longer to get to that point.

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

26left said:

eskbanker said:

masonic said:

The latest update from the campaign was added to the petition site two days ago

I've not been checking the main petition page very regularly, but are you of the opinion the comment following "Latest news" was posted there two days ago (i.e. 5 days after Nationwide promised to respond once they had considered the matter fully)?

I'd assumed that this update would have been a reaction to some further comment from Nationwide that they would not be responding. In the absence of such a further response, and as has been pointed out above, the "Latest news" would appear to meet the test for defamation, especially as it is coupled with a call for what amounts to a boycott.

My original generous interpretation was the "Latest news" was hot off the press following a response from Nationwide e.g. yesterday.

See "Streisand effect".

Also worth noting in passing that various posts on this forum probably also meet the test for potential defamation, but weren't called out as such.

Yes, those were the lines I was thinking along. It provides an explanation for why it was posted on the petition page where it can far more easily be attributed to a known individual as opposed to the campaign site which is not (or forumites passing comment here).

Edit: and now there is also this: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/nationwide-s-deal-for-virgin-money-must-be-stopped-members-should-sign-up/ar-AA1nfrLE

Malthusian said:

masonic said:

I'd assumed that this update would have been a reaction to some further comment from Nationwide that they would not be responding. In the absence of such a further response, and as has been pointed out above, the "Latest news" would appear to meet the test for defamation, especially as it is coupled with a call for what amounts to a boycott.

Do you think that the assertion that Nationwide has ignored the petition (assuming it is false and Nationwide is still considering their response) meets the "serious harm" test?

As we all know, a claim for defamation in the UK can only succeed if it "has caused or is likely to cause serious financial harm", and for corporate claimants like Nationwide, "serious harm" is replaced with "serious financial loss".

So a defamation claim dies immediately unless lots of people actually do move their deposits out of Nationwide apart from the £100 minimum in response to the (allegedly false) claim their petition is being ignored. The onus would be on Nationwide to prove that happened. Nationwide have 16 million customers so even if every single one of the 1,500 petitioners drains their accounts to the minimum, that won't meet the definition of "serious harm". 

And if Nationwide do actually get seriously hit in the pocket by a customer exodus, then it is a misjudgement on their part to try to bulldoze through the merger.

I don't personally think Nationwide will take the bait, if that's what it is.