Greenwich and Woolwich MP, Nick Raynsford, has slammed Nationwide Building Society for its decision to close branches across south east London.
The MP described the plan to close branches in Greenwich, Woolwich, Blackheath Lewisham, Catford and Peckham as “disgraceful”.
Speaking after a meeting with Nationwide’s Group Distribution Director, Matthew Wyles, Mr Raynsford said:
‘The decision to close every single inner-South East London branch inside of the South Circular Road makes a mockery of Nationwide’s current advertising campaign which invites customers to come and visit a branch. This simply will not be possible if you live in Greenwich and Woolwich. How is a young mum reliant on public transport living in Woolwich, or a pensioner with no car living in Blackheath, expected to get to Bromley to visit a Nationwide branch?
‘For Nationwide to turn its back on the entire inner-South East London area is shameful and a betrayal of the building society’s co-operative history and roots in mutual banking. Instead, this disgraceful decision harks back to the redlining practices of the 1970s, when banks deliberately denied their services to people from poorer backgrounds and low incomes’.
The plan, which was first reported by 853, will see the branches closed by May this year with Nationwide customers expected to visit branches in Eltham, Bexleyheath or Bromley instead.
Raynsford in ‘serving his electorate’ shocker.
(Gah! Why do people continue to vote for him?!)
Nick….too little too late mate.
The people of Greenwich have long memories and know how you have treated them over the market/hotel development.
First chance they get to get rid of you and finish your political ambition cant come soon enough.
But we expect nothing less after 13 years of labour lies!
Has it not appeared to Mr Raynsford that Nationwide has no incentive or purpose to maintain branches in locations where it doesn’t have a sufficient existing or potential customer base to support their cost. Nationawide’s other customers would bear the cost if Nationawide were to maintain them to entertain pensioners (the Blackheath example) or to consider mortgage applications from people who are unlikely to have the deposit and credit rating required for a mortgage (the Woolwich example). That’s how capitalism and “efficient allocation of resources” works, as opposed to the command-and-control model that Mr Raynsford appears to advocate.
Think you’re being a bit hopeful there James. Mr Raynsford is a long time supporter of the market redevelopment…he even urged the developers to appeal before the last general election and was comfortably elected in May.
Things is Tom, being openly critical of the residents of Greenwich who oppose or just want to properly consulted on develoment in THERE/OUR town/borough as he has been recently just makes more and more enemies by the Day.
He is meant to serve the people…but now we see he is interested in just serving himself and his Big mates!
“Will””
Nationwide spends hundreds of thousands on advertising boasting that it is a mutual, focused on serving members rather than maximising profit for shareholders. Should that not involve subsidising at least one branch in the area?
Other members need not have to pay: just trim the grotesque annual salaries of £800,000-£1.5m paid to half a dozen directors.
Dai Smile, you’ve just answered to your own question: because Nationwide’s customers are also its members it is not in their interest for it to engage in activities that they, not the state or shareholders, would subsidise. Besides the cost of unnecessary branches members could also potentially end up underwriting loans to less creditworthy households. If any redistribution of subsidies are needed, the state should do this through the banks that it owns as the cost and risks are then covered by all tax payers.