RIPP OFF !! Nationwide Flex Account

bridian

noh wrote: »

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

I'll correct you there if I may
she said it operates as a current account except for the other facts mentioned above. i.e. must pay 1k per month and the interest is 4.25. The issue still remains that there was no mention of 3k which is when the interest changes. She knew how much was being paid into the account.
Might be a good idea if this thread is put on hold until I hear more. I'll keep you informed.

MarkyMarkD

bridian wrote: »

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

You really are an impolite individual.

I note that the post you consider rude has been thanked 6 times (to date) whilst your ever-so-helpful "RIPP OFF" warning has been thanked 0 times (to date). Go figure.

Your story is inconsistent from top to bottom. I didn't call you a liar, I said that you might be confused.

So far your confusion has included

- the date you opened the account;
- the fact that you were told the interest was paid monthly - but you still didn't query the lack of interest until a huge number of months later;
- the fact that the account wasn't a current account - but then it was;
- the fact that you had a "good reason" for accepting a rate 2% below the best instant access rates, when blatantly you had no such good reason. Instant access is instant access;
- the fact that you call Nationwide a bank when they are in fact a building society.

I could go on, but I shan't bother.

Next time you invest what to most people is a huge amount of money, do yourself the favour of spending two minutes understanding the rates paid.

And don't bother posting a "rip-off" warning when it's simply "understand what you are buying" advice which any normal person would not need giving.

bridian

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

You really are an impolite individual.

I note that the post you consider rude has been thanked 6 times (to date) whilst your ever-so-helpful "RIPP OFF" warning has been thanked 0 times (to date). Go figure.

Your story is inconsistent from top to bottom. I didn't call you a liar, I said that you might be confused.

So far your confusion has included

- the date you opened the account;
- the fact that you were told the interest was paid monthly - but you still didn't query the lack of interest until a huge number of months later;
- the fact that the account wasn't a current account - but then it was;
- the fact that you had a "good reason" for accepting a rate 2% below the best instant access rates, when blatantly you had no such good reason. Instant access is instant access;
- the fact that you call Nationwide a bank when they are in fact a building society.

I could go on, but I shan't bother.

Next time you invest what to most people is a huge amount of money, do yourself the favour of spending two minutes understanding the rates paid.

And don't bother posting a "rip-off" warning when it's simply "understand what you are buying" advice which any normal person would not need giving.

you might want to explain how your coments are assisting others that might get into the same predicament as this is what it's about, or did you fail to read that issue. Do you perhaps just rip to bits the parts that you chose to rip? or perhaps even work for a financial institution? or maybe even do the same to others. Once again the answer to these questions is irrelivant to me. I throw back if somebody throws at me. I refuse to be bullied or intimidated by you or anybody else and i will stand for what is right. End of.
I shall repeat myself just one more time, it is for those that might be in the same boat and take a look in the mirror for rudness. The only thing I've done wrong is not reading enough and trust too much. From now on you can say what you like because you're not helping anybody and not worth responding to anymore.

noh

bridian wrote: »

I'll correct you there if I may
she said it operates as a current account except for the other facts mentioned above. i.e. must pay 1k per month and the interest is 4.25. The issue still remains that there was no mention of 3k which is when the interest changes. She knew how much was being paid into the account.
Might be a good idea if this thread is put on hold until I hear more. I'll keep you informed.

You appear to be contradicting your post #33 where you stated

"We weren't even told it was a current account!!"

Nigel

bridian

noh wrote: »

You appear to be contradicting your post #33 where you stated

"We weren't even told it was a current account!!"

Nigel

I'm not contradicting it. We WERN'T told it WAS!! We were told that it WORKS LIKE one. To me there is a difference. People have pulled words to shreds and so will I. There is a difference between IS A CURRENT ACCOUNT and LIKE A CURRENT ACCOUNT. If she would have said IS then we would have looked at things diffrently. I don't mind speaking to you by the way, as you're not so bad. I don't mind a healthy debate but I do draw the line somewhere.

bridian

sloughflint wrote: »

4 pages:eek:. This is getting daft. Time for closure?

yes it is!! I'll update when it's over. Thank you.:T

dunstonh

Whilst others have higlighted inconsistencies, it is important to note that inconsitencies will go a long way in a complaint to the FOS. It undermines your credability. So, do not dismiss them.

Here is a copy and paste of a response from the Ombudsman on a mortgage complaint (taken from the FOS monthly publications).

complaint not upheld
Mr K told us the broker had encouraged him to accept the initial re-mortgage, even though the amount he was offered was much less than he had wanted. According to Mr K, the broker had assured him that as soon as the re-mortgage was set up, Mr K could immediately apply for more money and would have no difficulty in getting it.
The broker had kept good records of the mortgage advice he had given Mr K. When we examined these records we found nothing to suggest that Mr K had asked for – or received – any assurance about the possibility of obtaining further funds.
There were a number of inconsistencies in Mr K’s account of events and he was unable to substantiate his claims that the broker had misled him. There was no doubt that – by re-mortgaging a second time – Mr K had incurred considerable costs. However, we did not agree that the broker should reimburse him for these costs. We did not uphold the complaint.

Calchas

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I note that the post you consider rude has been thanked 6 times

Nobody ever said you had a monopoly as far as boredom is concerned MarkyMarkD.

You try hard but there are others that might take your title!

marvin

Just in case its not been mentioned yet like many other accounts Nationwide Flex is also a tiered interest account dependent on the amount of money being paid into it.

MarkyMarkD

bridian wrote: »

you might want to explain how your coments are assisting others that might get into the same predicament as this is what it's about, or did you fail to read that issue. Do you perhaps just rip to bits the parts that you chose to rip? or perhaps even work for a financial institution? or maybe even do the same to others. Once again the answer to these questions is irrelivant to me. I throw back if somebody throws at me. I refuse to be bullied or intimidated by you or anybody else and i will stand for what is right. End of.
I shall repeat myself just one more time, it is for those that might be in the same boat and take a look in the mirror for rudness. The only thing I've done wrong is not reading enough and trust too much. From now on you can say what you like because you're not helping anybody and not worth responding to anymore.

There is no predicament here for others to learn from. Sensible people don't give £25,000 to another individual or bank (or even building society :rolleyes:) without any documentation of the deal they are getting into.

I don't sell anything to anyone; I've already said (but presumably you couldn't read that bit) that I would expect any sales person to do a diligent job and to advise their customers correctly, in the same way that I personally would expect to do a good day's work for my employer.

Don't get personal just because your original point has no foundation other than you failing to read documentation and placing naive belief in your own mistaken understanding of what you believe you were told.