Just to say the email address for Nationwide's Chief Executive is:
graham.beale@nationwide.co.uk   This works as I have used it previously.   I would urge all forum members who have any business with Nationwide to email him asap to try and make them re-think before they start switching off the existin numbers.

There is also a link (not on the main Nationwide website) to obtain all senior management details, perhaps they should all have a copy of complaints? It is:
www.nationwide.co.uk/about_nationwide/corporate_governance/management
if this is helpful to anyone.

I have joined all threads on Nationwide together.

Barbara has asked me to post on her behalf, a response she has received:

Quote:

Quote:


These are standard lies used by 084/7 number using call centres for many years and are usually provided to them by their telecoms suppliers who profit from the calls to the numbers.

What is particularly monstrous in Nationwide's case is that they have switched to 0845 numbers for their branches only after 03 numbers were already available, having always retained geographic numbers up to that point (except for their national credit card and telephone banking centres that have always used 0845 for many years).  The history to that is that Nationwide used to have a Board of Directors that ran things in the interests of members but then its Board Members were largely replaced by the usual bonus hungry careerists that have got the banks in to so much trouble.  It is these people who no doubt suddenly were persuaded they could get their outgoing calls cheaper and free switchboard equipment and phone maintenance etc by using numbers they hoped to be able to stil portray as "local" and their telephone suppliers no doubt alleged were "local rate".

The position is simple.  If Nationwide find the benefits of call re-routing and so on (usually illusory and simply a lie used to justify the revenue share benefits that are the real motivation for the use of 084/7 numbers) so compelling they should switch to 03 numbers.  If 03 numbers are more expensive to run than 01/02 numbers in total terms after allowing for all ancillary costs then the society should revert to issuing 01/02 numbers for its branches.

The use of 084/7 numbers by a member owned institution that prides itself on not charging many other ripoff fees charged by the large banks (eg 2.75% "foreign exchange rate levy"/aka shareholders bubbly fund) is simply not defensible and I for one as a member of their Society am livid about it.

Worse still is that their staff are still widely telling customers that 0845 numbers are "definitely local rate" and that they are right and the customer is wrong if the customer dares challenge the Society on its use of these numbers.

As usual SCV you are acting as an apologist for the scammers.  I will continue to lack patience with you on this forum until you stop excusing the actions of the scammers.

With reference to the latest posts.

If I were a member of an orgainisation and became convinced that is that was deliberately set on practicing deceipt in my name and to my fainancial advantage, then I would probably leave; especially if I were also convinced that its democratic processes had failed. I certainly would not seek to draw public attention to my reluctant, if modest, participation in a scam.

I do not recall having ever claimed that my campaigning activities were motivated by a sense of altruism. They are certainly not motivated by any desire for personal financial gain. I do not subscribe to the view that all actions must be weighed in terms of measurable financial advantage.

If I believed that all those who used 084/7 numbers were knowing participants in a scam, then I probably would not bother campaigning on this issue. Why waste effort trying to get a leopard to change its spots?

At the risk of accepting the invitation to mix metafors, I will switch to the anlaogy that was offered and respond in those terms. It must be noted that I am refering here to a view that I do not share.

Once the wolf has been exposed it must surely be shot, not left to threaten other flocks.

My point was to question why one would bother to ask the wool-covered figures to abandon their wolverine behaviour, if believing it to be genetically determined.

I campaign against the activities of those who I believe may be persuaded to change their mind and their approach to use of non-geographic numbers. I obviously wish for all abuse of revenue sharing numbers to cease, as I wish for much else in the world to change for the better, however I deploy my energies where I believe that most could be achieved.

Not only do I not see wolves behind every case of use of revenue sharing, I also recognise the risk of "crying wolf" (now I am mixing metaphors) too often.

I sense some agreement.

In time we could perhaps return to sorting out who are the wolves and who are the keepers of what is normally understood to be a wild animal.

I recall suggesting that the Nationwide Building Society is indeed likely to be responsive to appropriate representations from members.

Quote:


This should not be misunderstood as being a desire for "the abolition of all revenue sharing numbers in the fullness of time". My position, if it has not been made clear previously, is that the service fee associated with their use should be openly declared. There are many cases where no service fee could properly be levied and it is in these situations where their use must be ceased. I regard a failure to declare and justify the service fee, or its inappropriate imposition as abuse. I do not preclude the possibility of its justification in certain cases.

Having sorted out the general positions of two contributors in public, perhaps I should make it clear that I would be happy to provide support and assistance to members engaged with the appropriate officers of the Nationwide in gaining a proper understanding of the position and in undertaking the necessary review of policy. Please email or PM me if there is anything that I can do to help.

Hi, there is another thread on Nationwide started I think in December to which I added in January.  To summarise, I have been locked in dispute with Nationwide over this issue.  I have emailed the CE (grahambeale@nationwide.co.uk) a number of times and been treated with total disregard and contempt, as well as like an idiot.    Basically they have made their decision, they still describe 0845 as local rate, they are not prepared to change/reconsider anything at all, they do not accept this will disadvantage their members and, after 2 replies, I received the usual fob off of this is what we do, if you don't like it go to the ombudsman.  Of course, that is a totally spurious suggestion as the ombudsman has no power or authority whatsoever over the way Nationwide choose to operate.   I did, in the other thread, urge any and all customers of Nationwide to make their views felt.  I believe a number of forum members are doing this.   I do feel Nationwide need to be reminded constantly that it is their customers' money which keeps them going and pays their wages and that they make much of being a member-led organisation answerable to members rather than shareholders.   I also feel that this change goes against the spirit of their adverts of not offering good deals only to new members - in this case, members had access to branches and this is now denied unless they are prepared to pay a premium.   This is particularly pertinent as, if you look at their website, a considerable number of their savings/investment products are ONLY available via branches.