Nationwide customers to pay

Only 8p per customer, from what I read.

Actually, if you don't like the decision you could always vote to get rid of the current directors at the next elections. Perhaps you should consider starting a compaign group.

Incidentally, has there been any hard fast proof that any customers of Nationwide suffered loss as a direct result of the data on the laptop being found and used?

Very arrogant. They should be surcharged.

I have three Nationwide accounts so I assume that will be 24p in my instance. I don't see why I should pay for their employee's f*ck-up though.

Does it matter whether their has been any hard and fast evidence that a customer has lost out. The Nationwide by its arrogant attitude and complete breach of procedures left me open to posssible fraud.

That is a good enough reason for them to be liable, not me.

Kevin

An awful lot of people, including those trying to sell tabloids, have once again got everything out of context and out of proportion.

This incident was only news worthy because of the number of clients included in the "lost" laptop. If it had been a few dozen, no-one would have heard about it. Yet the number of names doesn't increase the risk of any one person being subject to fraud (if anything, it reduces your chance of being targeted)

There was no info in the laptop that made fraud any more possible.

There is no employee in the country who hasn't made, and doesn't make, mistakes in their work (except those that do nothing).

All mistakes are part of the cost of running a business - and reflect in the prices, the profitability and the dividends. 'Twas ever thus.

The cost of the "fine" is much less than the cost of mass-mailings, damaged reputation etc - which could all have been avoided if people had the sense to think before they wrote and spoke on this issue in such exaggerated and scare-mongering tones.

Unless you, or anyone else harping on about this topic, is prepared to pay out of their own pocket every time a subordinate makes a mistake and thereby incurs unnecessary cost for their employer, you have no ground for making such a ludicrous suggestion.

So there.

Indeed. I only ever vote for one candidate in the elections to the Board, but he hasn't managed to get on, because so many apathetic folk just vote for incumbents. Many of those have been co-opted in the first instance, a very undemocratic way to run things. 8-(

"or is that what is meant by mutual status ?"

In a word.

The 'customers' are the owners.

P.S. Please don't include 20 previous posts in your responses.

No maybe not but they should forego part of their bonus this year.