RIPP OFF !! Nationwide Flex Account

bridian

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I can't agree with the OP.

Investing £25,000 in any sort of account with any institution, without reading any literature about the account, is simply ridiculous.

And the rates on all accounts change over time. One would expect someone investing £25,000 to !!!! themselves (OP's words) to check whether the rate had changed - and at that point, to notice the fact that the account rates are capped at balances of £2,500.

Don't get me wrong OP - I expect everyone to do their job properly, the same way I expect myself to give my employer a good day's work for an honest wage. But I take account of the motivations for individual members of staff, and don't expect every sales person I speak to to give me a fair assessment of the entire market, and to recommend the right product if it won't get them a sale.

Frankly, I don't believe your original story. I don't accept that anyone in Nationwide would have actually said "stick £25,000 in this Flex account and you'll get x% on it". But if you want to believe that's what you were told, go ahead. And gripe about it. Even though what they said would have been proved wrong the millisecond you checked the product details, either in the product leaflet on the branch shelf, or online and readily accessible.

If they told you what you claim you were told, they were an idiot - anyone who wasn't sitting on their !!!! would have found them out straight away.

Maybe you just misunderstood, and the "RIP OFF" has been perpetrated by you on yourself?

Hang on - you were happy to invest £25,000 at a rate around 2% lower than the best market rates in any case. Let me rephrase that - the "RIP OFF" was perpetrated by you on yourself.

Why complain to us that Nationwide have ripped you off, when you were happily throwing away £500 a year of interest for no apparent reason?

Edit: I've just noticed that the OP opened this account in March 2006, and appears to have taken 22 months (January 2008) to notice this imaginary "RIP OFF". !!!!!!?

---

statement of interest

---

I have NO (material) financial interest in Nationwide's success. I don't work for Nationwide. I admit to being a member of Nationwide, but that's only in the forlorn hope that they'll grow out of their stupid addiction to mutuality and become the bank they blatantly want to become.

My comments in this thread are as impartial as anyone else's.

But I also don't accept as gospel the postings of anyone who entitles their thread "RIP OFF" (especially if they can't even spell "RIP") as they are almost universally wrong.

Frankly I don't give a toss what you think and please don't call me a liar because I'm not. We know what we were told and we had valid reasons in putting the money there. It wouldn't make any sense for anybody to put that much money in a current account if we weren't told what we we were told. I've accepted everybody's cmments on this but yours I find, are quite frankly rude. As for the account being opened in 06, it wasn't but silly me got that wrong too. it was actually o7 10 months. Isn't it unlucky that we're not all perfect. If I was then I'm sure I'd be a bank manager

free4440273

Inactive wrote: »

" RIPP OFF !! Nationwide Flex Account "

The header is OTT in my opinion, the documentation was given to you at the time you opened the account, the info is also on the WebSite, if you couldn't be arsed to read it, you can hardly blame Nationwide, despite what any member of staff may, or may not have implied.

I have several accounts with Nationwide, I have had them for a few years, never had a problem with any of them.

Ditto: never had a problem with NW - ever - and have several accounts with them

dunstonh

Its the financial services ombudsman now and they look at documentary evidence. They will consider conversations you mention but the problem with that is that people forget things or imagine things were said that were not or even downright lie.

A good example is say with endowments where adviser may have said "you could get back a large lump sum at the end". That is compliant and acceptable. However, over time people forget the exact wording and say they were told "they would get back a large lump sum at the end". Totally different things.

Documentary evidence generally trumps verbal. Not all the time but mostly. If only verbal evidence exists on both sides then they look at the balance of probability. If it is found that one side has been untruthful in their verbal comments, then the balance usually swings the other way (if you were wrong in that, what else were you wrong in). Balance of probability is a hard one because there are almost certainly winners and losers on both sides which are not fair.

bridian

dunstonh wrote: »

Its the financial services ombudsman now and they look at documentary evidence. They will consider conversations you mention but the problem with that is that people forget things or imagine things were said that were not or even downright lie.

A good example is say with endowments where adviser may have said "you could get back a large lump sum at the end". That is compliant and acceptable. However, over time people forget the exact wording and say they were told "they would get back a large lump sum at the end". Totally different things.

Documentary evidence generally trumps verbal. Not all the time but mostly. If only verbal evidence exists on both sides then they look at the balance of probability. If it is found that one side has been untruthful in their verbal comments, then the balance usually swings the other way (if you were wrong in that, what else were you wrong in). Balance of probability is a hard one because there are almost certainly winners and losers on both sides which are not fair.

hi dunstonh,
Nice to hear from you again. Comment taken on board.
There were two of us at the office opening this account and we both remember what we were told.
She said that the account IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A CURRENT ACCOUNT BUT WITH THIS YOU HAVE TO PAY IN 1K A MONTH AND YOU WILL GET FOUR AND A QUARTER PERCENT ON THE BALLANCE WHICH IS PAID DAILY AND SHOWN AT THE END OF THE MONTH. No mention of up to 3k!

So, to us that meant
1. you can get a cheque book, which we didn't bother with cos we weren't going to use the money.
2. we got a debit card just in case.
3, we had the facility to put money into the account so we got my husbands wages paid in every month to cover the 1k and also to save more money, which was explained to her at the time.
4. we had the facility to take money out if required.

Two cheques were given to open this account totaling 60k. The reason for that was because my father's inheritance came through and we wanted a branch account to start with, with the intention of filtering to higher accounts and cash isa's which we already had. We also wanted about 10-20k to stay in this account also, as I don't like to tie everything into online banking.
All of this was explained to her and clarified with her not just once but several times.
If she hadn't have said what she did, would it make sense for us to:-
1. open the account in the first place
2. put that much money in there
3. leave that much money in there.
I don't think so.
As I've said before, yes we were wrong in not reading but lesson learnt but I still believe that it was an important piece of information that had not been pointed out to us, which in my opinion should have. I'm worried about the people that have, are doing or thinking of doing the same. That is what this thread is about (for the attention of the most serious of negatives). It's about trying to prevent others from making the same mistakes.

happyhappygal

bridian wrote: »

As I've said before, yes we were wrong in not reading but lesson learnt

Thank you bridian for pointing out your experience. A lesson learned for you indeed, and kindly passed on to us, your MSE peers.

I think you have had a hard time for this which should not have happened....you have informed us about a situation that could occur and thats a positive thing.

As for your loud and in capital letters title then so what?!....it got our attention :T .

Thank again, x

dunstonh

Looking purely at balance of probabilities, there are things there which would work for both sides and I wouldn't want to be the one making any decision if it was a formal complaint at the FOS. However, here are some unqualified judgements based purely on what your wrote above.

1. you can get a cheque book, which we didn't bother with cos we weren't going to use the money.

Were you sent one?

2. we got a debit card just in case.

Could be one for them because you dont get debit cards on savings accounts (and you were aware you could have a cheque book)

3, we had the facility to put money into the account so we got my husbands wages paid in every month to cover the 1k and also to save more money,

could be one for them. Not many people pay their wages into a savings account.

Two cheques were given to open this account totaling 60k. The reason for that was because my father's inheritance came through and we wanted a branch account to start with, with the intention of filtering to higher accounts and cash isa's which we already had.

possibly against you because you intended to put the money in there to later place into better savings accounts.

We also wanted about 10-20k to stay in this account also, as I don't like to tie everything into online banking.

Possibly against you as the figure is vague and even if you were leaving £10k or £20k in there, you wouldnt believe the number of people that keep high balances in their accounts earning little or nothing. A bank clerk wouldnt give that a second thought.

I dont think any of those work in your favour. The issue really comes down to this: A dispute over whether you were told you got less interest over £3k or not and whether you would have changed what you did had you known about it.

I think you are going to be relying on the goodwill of Nationwide and that you should raise it with them. I doubt they will put it right to the tune of £1000 although someone posted earlier in the mortgage section that they were offered £750 for something where the bank had cleary made no error but were doing it for goodwill (although the shame is that the poster there doesnt seem to realise that yet and the goodwill could be lost).

YorkshireBoy

The mind plays tricks over time doesn't it?

Early in the thread, the branch manager who opened your account was a 'he'. Later in the thread, 'he' became a 'she'.

In post #4, you said the branch manager "implied" what you'd get. Now, all of a sudden, you both remember that he/she said something far more specific...

bridian wrote: »

There were two of us at the office opening this account and we both remember what we were told.
She said that the account IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A CURRENT ACCOUNT BUT WITH THIS YOU HAVE TO PAY IN 1K A MONTH AND YOU WILL GET FOUR AND A QUARTER PERCENT ON THE BALLANCE WHICH IS PAID DAILY AND SHOWN AT THE END OF THE MONTH. No mention of up to 3k!

The above may be incorrect though, since interest accrues daily, but is paid annually on the 31st December.

You might want to address these irregularities prior to making any official complaint in writing, especially if it goes to the FOS and the aforementioned 'balance of probabilities' is brought into play.

bridian

edda wrote: »

FYI I raised a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman about 6 years ago - I know things may have changed since then.

My complaint was rejected on the grounds that I had not mentioned details raised in the original interview with the bank representative.

I hadn't raised these as I thought that verbal 'evidence' would be ignored. But the Ombudsman accepted the bank's version of a conversation - the bank presumably knew that this was the case.

If ever I raise any more complaints in the future, I would always mention conversations if I thought they were relevant. Lesson learnt!

you're more than welcome and thank you.

jamescredmond

sorry to hear of your dilemma. is it naive to expect a bs manager to act in a responsible manner? maybe, but given that he was clear on the amount you wanted to deposit it becomes obvious that he was acting very much in a negligent manner (from the bs's point of view) in not immediately offering you other products. If on-line banking is not a problem for you, stash the cash in Icesave for a better rate. If you go abroad at least once a year take the earlier advice and DON'T DITCH N'WIDE. I've saved a small bundle in avoiding international charges.

hope this helps

noh

bridian wrote: »

hi dunstonh,
Nice to hear from you again. Comment taken on board.
There were two of us at the office opening this account and we both remember what we were told.
She said that the account IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A CURRENT ACCOUNT BUT WITH THIS YOU HAVE TO PAY IN 1K A MONTH AND YOU WILL GET FOUR AND A QUARTER PERCENT ON THE BALLANCE WHICH IS PAID DAILY AND SHOWN AT THE END OF THE MONTH. No mention of up to 3k!

So, to us that meant
1. you can get a cheque book, which we didn't bother with cos we weren't going to use the money.
2. we got a debit card just in case.
3, we had the facility to put money into the account so we got my husbands wages paid in every month to cover the 1k and also to save more money, which was explained to her at the time.
4. we had the facility to take money out if required.

Two cheques were given to open this account totaling 60k. The reason for that was because my father's inheritance came through and we wanted a branch account to start with, with the intention of filtering to higher accounts and cash isa's which we already had. We also wanted about 10-20k to stay in this account also, as I don't like to tie everything into online banking.
All of this was explained to her and clarified with her not just once but several times.
If she hadn't have said what she did, would it make sense for us to:-
1. open the account in the first place
2. put that much money in there
3. leave that much money in there.
I don't think so.
As I've said before, yes we were wrong in not reading but lesson learnt but I still believe that it was an important piece of information that had not been pointed out to us, which in my opinion should have. I'm worried about the people that have, are doing or thinking of doing the same. That is what this thread is about (for the attention of the most serious of negatives). It's about trying to prevent others from making the same mistakes.

In an earlier post you said you weren't informed that this was a current account. Now you say you were.
Your post is usefull as it highlights the need to read and understand the terms of any contract you enter into. I hope your experience prevents others making the same mistake.

Nigel