Member Nominated Candidate calls on FCA to review election fairness ahead of 2026 AGM voting form distribution
Public Statement – Saturday 30th May 2026
I’m grateful to Jasper Jolly for the article published today surrounding this year’s Board election process: Nationwide customer seeking election to board hits out at lender for ‘unfair’ treatment (The Guardian).
One issue raised in the article is particularly important.
Nationwide has refused requests to amend my Election Address and inform Members about the implications of using the Board-backed Quick Vote system. I believe this to be the first time the quick vote system has been used to vote AGAINST a candidate in the UK. The Board decided to retain said system despite my requests for it be suspended in the interests of fairness. The quick vote has not once been tested with a MND candidate since its introduction in 2006.
At the same time, edits have been made to my Election Address by Nationwide without my approval. I have not seen a proof copy after they have edited it.
This appears contrary to the Building Societies Act (1986), Section 61, so I have written to Dominic Cashman and the Mutual Societies team at the Financial Conduct Authority asking them to review how Nationwide is planning to present my candidacy to the Membership.
I have consistently maintained for the past two months (and when submitting my nominations last year) that, if the Board chose not to suspend the Quick vote, I would need the ability to update my Election Address accordingly so that Members could make a fully informed choice.
In addition:
• I have not been provided with a proof copy of the final voting for design (both paper and electronic);
• nor the accompanying “Who are you voting for?” booklet being sent to Members;
• while Board-appointed candidates are likely to have been given that opportunity.
This raises serious questions about whether a Member-nominated candidate is being afforded equal treatment within a Member-owned organisation.
For me, this campaign has never been about personalities. It is about governance, transparency and the principle that Members should have a genuine opportunity to elect one of their own to the Board.
Ultimately, the decision should belong to Members — not be structurally shaped by the incumbent Board.