B(W)ankers: Nationwide

RideOnTime

Its good to see in the post this morning that the CEO of the Nationwide earns £2.5m a year. Well done him.

The Nationwide very kindly didn't tell me my kids bond had lapsed and that they had been earning 0.2% interest for the last 11 months.

THANKS....

RideOnTime

Oh yes £2.5m. That's just £48,000 a week.

ballysmate

Annoying? Yes
The bank's fault that you forgot/overlooked the lapse? No

ToeKnee

Ballysmate wrote:

Annoying? Yes
The bank's fault that you forgot/overlooked the lapse? No

B(W)anker by chance?

MattC59

I'm guessing that writing to you wasn't on his 'To-Do' list.

ballysmate

People take out financial products and the t&c are highlighted at the time. If they were not, then the OP has grounds for a complaint and to be compensated.
If the t&c were made clear, then the customer has to bear their portion of responsibility. People who take out financial products, surely have a duty to oversee them themselves and not blame others for their oversights.
Bankers can be blamed for many things, but not for people failing to monitor their own money.

Percy Vera

I think people are finally starting to realise - Banks aren't there to make you money, they don't care about you

hipshot

Ballysmate wrote:

Bankers can be blamed for many things, but not for people failing to monitor their own money.

Failing to monitor their own money? Does that apply to the misselling of financial 'services', marketed and advertised to exaggerate the benefits and hide the pitfalls and extortionate charges in acres of small print, targeting the vulnerable with specifically designed products to relieve them of their money. What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

Pross

hipshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Bankers can be blamed for many things, but not for people failing to monitor their own money.

Failing to monitor their own money? Does that apply to the misselling of financial 'services', marketed and advertised to exaggerate the benefits and hide the pitfalls and extortionate charges in acres of small print, targeting the vulnerable with specifically designed products to relieve them of their money. What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

You didn't read his first paragraph then?

hipshot

Did you not read my last one?

ballysmate

hipshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Bankers can be blamed for many things, but not for people failing to monitor their own money.

Failing to monitor their own money? Does that apply to the misselling of financial 'services', marketed and advertised to exaggerate the benefits and hide the pitfalls and extortionate charges in acres of small print, targeting the vulnerable with specifically designed products to relieve them of their money. What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of the most financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

Failing to monitor their own money

For 11 months the OP was unaware that the interest on the bonds had been reduced.

Does that apply to the misselling of financial 'services', marketed and advertised to exaggerate the benefits and hide the pitfalls and extortionate charges in acres of small print, targeting the vulnerable with specifically designed products to relieve them of their money

.

Nowhwere did the OP state that he had been mis sold a product. I also stated quite clearly that if he had not been made aware of the t&c he would have grounds to be compensated.

What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of the most financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

Agree that these two companies are despicable for the reasons you state. But on the other hand, no one is marched at gunpoint into Brighthous to buy a TV that they can't afford at an extortionate APR. It is their choice to pay over the odds rather than save until they can afford to buy one at a reputable source.

Ben6899

hipshot wrote:

Did you not read my last one?

I'm not defending the banks, but Ballysmate has it covered.

Ballysmate wrote:

People take out financial products and the t&c are highlighted at the time. If they were not, then the OP has grounds for a complaint and to be compensated.

Ballysmate wrote:

Bankers can be blamed for many things...

Pross

hipshot wrote:

Did you not read my last one?

Yes, I have no sympathy for that argument. The interest figures are there on all their adverts and the company are there to make money. If used as a short term, 'payday' loan as intended the interest rate is high but in actual terms it isn't a lot of money. There's been enough bad press over those companies that even someone financially naive should realise they are not a good long term option.

marylogic

Nationwide is a building society rather than a bank so officially it has mutual status

According to their website:
"Nationwide has mutual (as opposed to Public Limited Company) status, which means that we are owned by and run for the benefit of our members."



So one could argue that perhaps they should have informed the OP! (not that I'm actually going to - I believe in personal responsibility, but couldn't resist playing devil's advocate )

hipshot

Pross wrote:

hipshot wrote:

Did you not read my last one?

Yes, I have no sympathy for that argument. The interest figures are there on all their adverts and the company are there to make money. If used as a short term, 'payday' loan as intended the interest rate is high but in actual terms it isn't a lot of money. There's been enough bad press over those companies that even someone financially naive should realise they are not a good long term option.

They are financially inexperienced, that's the whole point they are unlikely to read small print or make complaints to financial ombudsmen, the banks and other lenders know this . It's nothing to do with personal financial responsibility when the playing field is so skewed.

It seems you don't have much sympathy full stop.

ballysmate

marylogic wrote:

Nationwide is a building society rather than a bank so officially it has mutual status

According to their website:
"Nationwide has mutual (as opposed to Public Limited Company) status, which means that we are owned by and run for the benefit of our members."



So one could argue that perhaps they should have informed the OP! (not that I'm actually going to - I believe in personal responsibility, but couldn't resist playing devil's advocate )

Well for devil's advocate it could be argued that by not drawing the OP's attention to his oversight, carelessness, forgetfulness etc they were earning the rest of their members extra wonga. (I'm not arguing this either.)

marylogic

Ballysmate wrote:

marylogic wrote:

Nationwide is a building society rather than a bank so officially it has mutual status

According to their website:
"Nationwide has mutual (as opposed to Public Limited Company) status, which means that we are owned by and run for the benefit of our members."



So one could argue that perhaps they should have informed the OP! (not that I'm actually going to - I believe in personal responsibility, but couldn't resist playing devil's advocate )

Well for devil's advocate it could be argued that by not drawing the OP's attention to his oversight, carelessness, forgetfulness etc they were earning the rest of their members extra wonga. (I'm not arguing this either.)

hipshot

Ballysmate wrote:

no one is marched at gunpoint into Brighthous to buy a TV that they can't afford at an extortionate APR. It is their choice to pay over the odds rather than save until they can afford to buy one at a reputable source.

Keep Right indeed :roll:

daviesee

Two simple rules for finance.

1. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
2. Read the contract. If you don't understand the contract, don't sign it.

They are not hard to teach.

CiB

Presumably the bonds didn't just lapse due to some change of business plan or rejigging of the various saving schemes that NW offer, they came to their natural conclusion. Whichever, keeping an eye on the website would be the logical thing to do. That's how info is disseminated these days.

MountainMonster

hipshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Bankers can be blamed for many things, but not for people failing to monitor their own money.

Failing to monitor their own money? Does that apply to the misselling of financial 'services', marketed and advertised to exaggerate the benefits and hide the pitfalls and extortionate charges in acres of small print, targeting the vulnerable with specifically designed products to relieve them of their money. What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

So you are saying that companies like Wonga are at fault for the people who choose to use their products? They make it damn well clear you are paying 278% interest on the loan, and if you can not afford it simply do not take one out. People know what they are getting themselves into when they sign for the loan.

drlodge

MountainMonster wrote:

People know what they are getting themselves into when they sign for the loan.

No they don't that's the point; the people who use these types of products, on the whole are pretty stupid (actually they're normally not so pretty). But the people who use these products should take responsibility for their actions, which amounts to much the same. Buyer beware.

MountainMonster

drlodge wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

People know what they are getting themselves into when they sign for the loan.

No they don't that's the point; the people who use these types of products, on the whole are pretty stupid (actually they're normally not so pretty). But the people who use these products should take responsibility for their actions, which amounts to much the same. Buyer beware.

Exactly, although they do know what they are getting themselves into. Interest rates are plastered over every single advert, you get told the rate and total repayable multiple times before confirming the loan.

I'm just trying to say that saying those companies are at fault makes no logical sense, as they do their best to let you know you are getting ripped off.

daviesee

drlodge wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

People know what they are getting themselves into when they sign for the loan.

No they don't that's the point; the people who use these types of products, on the whole are pretty stupid (actually they're normally not so pretty). But the people who use these products should take responsibility for their actions, which amounts to much the same. Buyer beware.

That last paragraph goes complete circle.

hipshot

You're all very financially savvy. (Exit bankers with your money).

How much of this Thatcherite rubbish about personal responsibilty has seeped into your souls?

The logical conclusion to all this is that everyone is fair game to the loan sharks, pawnbrokers and shysters because it's buyer beware.

What's needed is these companies being shut down, strict regulation and wholesale changes in the rules governing them, not this spurious devil take the hindmost wisdom.

drlodge

hipshot wrote:

You're all very financially savvy. (Exit bankers with your money).

How much of this Thatcherite rubbish about personal responsibilty has seeped into your souls?

I'm not a banker, and what is wrong with expecting people to take personal responsibility? Lack of responsibility is principally what's wrong with the world today.

bompington

hipshot wrote:

How much of this Thatcherite rubbish about personal responsibilty has seeped into your souls

That's right, only a blatant fascist would expect anyone to take personal responsibility :roll:

Without a doubt I agree that these companies are repugnant, should be watched like hawks, and regulated to within an inch of their corporate lives.
But you cannot ban them without, at some point, drawing a line which says "this side of the line OK, that side not on" - perhaps it's OK to charge 10%? Or 20%? Or 50%? 100%?
This only leads to good old-fashioned socialist statism, where every commercial transaction has to be approved by the state. Now some here sound like they would approve whole heartedly, but really, is there any evidence that the State has ever regulated these things at all wisely?

The bottom line is that, especially after all the publicity, you have to be an industrial grade fool to take out a loan with these sharks. You can't completely legislate out stupidity.

Ben6899

drlodge wrote:

hipshot wrote:

You're all very financially savvy. (Exit bankers with your money).

How much of this Thatcherite rubbish about personal responsibilty has seeped into your souls?

I'm not a banker, and what is wrong with expecting people to take personal responsibility? Lack of responsibility is principally what's wrong with the world today.

Amen, brother.

smidsy

RideOnTime wrote:

Oh yes £2.5m. That's just £48,000 a week.

Yes but think of all that tax he pays. Deffo in the 50% super tax

hipshot

drlodge wrote:

I'm not a banker, and what is wrong with expecting people to take personal responsibility? Lack of responsibility is principally what's wrong with the world today.

Because it's a diversion.

The OP mentions his bank have taken advantage of a certain situation and is merely lectured on financial responsibility by all these homespun economists (who like all taxpayers have lost their shirts to the banks) who would rather give a sermon to the victims of a rigged financial services system than simply agree that bankers are just the w$nkers that they clearly are.

daviesee

hipshot wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I'm not a banker, and what is wrong with expecting people to take personal responsibility? Lack of responsibility is principally what's wrong with the world today.

Because it's a diversion.

The OP mentions his bank have taken advantage of a certain situation and is merely lectured on financial responsibility by all these homespun economists (who like all taxpayers have lost their shirts to the banks) who would rather give a sermon to the victims of a rigged financial services system than simply agree that bankers are just the w$nkers that they clearly are.

The OP was negligent.
Bankers are wankers.

Happy :?: