Timeline

This page provides a timeline of the main events in the James4Nationwide Campaign.

Timeline of main interactions with Nationwide, the FCA, and CES regarding my nomination and election

July 2024

1) 18th July 2024 – I enquired with Nationwide as to the process to be elected as Member Nominated Candidate. Nationwide produced an official template nomination form and asked me to follow what I deem an inconvenient and antiquated process. On 30th October 2024 I met the Chair and Secretary and asked Nationwide to begin vetting me ahead of time so that Nationwide could not later claim that, if I was successfully nominated, I was not recommended simply because it had not enough time to assess my candidacy. The chair agreed, and I was subsequently interviewed by Nationwide’s executive search firm Korn Ferry in February 2025. My credentials were verified. Nationwide refused to provide me with any feedback, and paused the process in February 2025 pending a successful nomination.

August 2024

2) 5th August 2024 – in parallel to the nomination process, I applied to the FCA to request a copy of the Member Register, a statutory right under the Build Societies Act which is adjudicated by the FCA (an important difference vs access to shareholder registers under the Companies Act).

March 2025

3) 13th March 2025 – At a private hearing of my application at the FCA in – the first in 30+ years I was told – the FCA ran what I considered a biased process and a few days later formally declined my application. (I complained and 8 months later the FCA upheld its own position, but gave me £250 for taking a long time to handle my complaint.)

4) 31st March 2025 – I submitted 600 nominations to Nationwide, requiring 250 valid from qualified two year Members to be on the ballot.

April 2025

5) 8th April 2025 – the Society Secretary called me to say that I had fallen significantly short of the threshold required. He initially refused to give me a number, but subsequently disclosed it was 142. I explained I would not be deterred and would try again. I asked for a detailed breakdown of the reasons why so many were deemed invalid and Nationwide refused. Nationwide refused to respond to individual Member requests as to whether their nomination was deemed valid, and if not, why.

March 2026

6) 30th March 2026 – I submitted ~350 nominations, with my election address, a cover letter and a deposit cheque of £500 to Nationwide. The Times – who had published an op-ed from me earlier in the month – went to press same day with a short article titled “Let him stand”

April 2026

6) 9th April 2026 – I received written notice that I had received 256 valid nominations and therefore would be on the ballot for the 2026 AGM. Nationwide would resume vetting that was put on pause by Nationwide pending successful nomination back in February 2025. I was interviewed by the Board nomination committee: 2 interviews of 2 hours, each time with 2 different Board Members and the Society Secretary (a Board observer) as scribe, on the 15th and 20th April. The letter confirmed that “The election address of not more than 500 words that you have already submitted will accompany the Notice”.

May 2026

7) Thursday May 28th 2026 – the same morning that The Times published an article titled “Nationwide rebel fears poll handicap” hinting that Nationwide might be deliberately running down the clock, Nationwide finally disclosed the Board’s decisions given my nomination by telephone call:

that I was not recommended to the Membership,
the Board would not suspend the quick vote despite my request – a unanimous decision
and – I think for the first time in history – Nationwide would “weaponise” the quick vote against a Member Nominated Candidate.

Nationwide also disclosed on the call that it had removed without my permission the same sentence placed near the start and finish of my Election Address which read “Learn more at James4Nationwide.co.uk” and a QR code that links to the same page. (Nationwide and I had both previously identified a typographical error relating to my CEO and Board Director roles at Growth Street, which both parties agreed should be amended to “FCA registered” rather than “FCA regulated”.)

The terms of the election were also laid out – this was not a contested election, I simply need more For than Against votes to be Elected, i.e. I do not need more For votes than another Candidate to unseat him/her (which has happened twice before in living memory).

Nationwide subsequently disclosed that it was refusing my proposed revisions to my Election Address, despite requesting this several times over the last 2 months.

I went to press the same day as it was clear the “gloves were off” and time was running out. Nationwide issued a reactive media statement the same day attacking my suitability. I have countered this here: My counter to Nationwide’s statements made today regarding my suitability.

I challenged Nationwide the same day on its edits to my Election Address without permission, and not making the edits I had requested given the Board’s decision – wishing to append 18 words (still well within the 500 word limit) to ask Members to vote against the Board’s Candidates and to DO NOT USE THE QUICK VOTE. The Society Secretary wrote to me at 6.11pm on Friday 29th May to say Nationwide would not make any further changes to my address i.e. the unsanctioned edits would remain.

9) Saturday 30th May 2026 – I raised a concern with the FCA regarding a lack of procedural fairness and natural justice, and I requested a hearing under section 61(9) of the Building Societies Act as I was clearly in dispute with Nationwide over my address.

June 2026

10) 5th June 2026 – the FCA finally disclosed that it could not convene a hearing as Nationwide had explained to the FCA it was not relying on Section 61(8), and I should contact Nationwide as to the rationale for their redactions.

11) Nationwide has since refused to disclose the legal basis for editing my address without my permission beyond saying it could not provide reference to information outside of its control.

12) 10th June 2026 – I have asked the FCA to investigate a potential breach of the law as Nationwide has not distributed a “copy” of my address, and to prosecute Nationwide and any officer if appropriate under Section 61(7).

I have supplied evidence to the FCA and Nationwide of Nationwide’s 2003 AGM voting guide where both Member Nominated Candidates that year had their Election Addresses reproduced verbatim including a telephone number as well as postal, email and web addresses.

13) I have asked Civica Election Services (CES) and Nationwide several questions re the Election process. Most have been ignored or lack specificity to be useful – see tracker here: CES / Nationwide questions.

2026 Election Campaign

If the same voting pattern occurs in 2026 as 2025

~670,000 of 9.3 million will vote.
~87% will use the Quick Vote, resulting in
~580,000 votes For Board appointed Candidates, and
~580,000 votes Against me as the first Member nominated Candidate since 2005.

The task ahead is therefore two fold:

I) Get the message out to as many existing voters as possible: “DO NOT USE THE QUICK VOTE.” If I get over half of these people to vote For me instead, I will neutralise the bias of the Quick Vote, and go from a net -580,000 to 0. This population voting for me instead of using the Quick Vote is effectively worth double to the net result: one less Against and one more For.

II) Get as many of the remaining voting members of 8.6 million who didn’t vote last year to turn out and vote for me, and ideally vote either Against or Withheld with regards to the Board Appointed Candidates in protest to my treatment.

Voting via paper and electronic platform begins this week and is open until 13th July. The virtual-only AGM is on 15th July. Last year only ~400 people turned up.