| The Nottingham Building Society | |
| Type: | Building society (mutual) |
| Industry: | Banking and Financial services |
| Products: | Savings, mortgages, investments, insurance |
| Revenue: | (2022) |
| Operating Income: | (2022) |
| Net Income: | (2022) |
| Assets: | (2022) |
| Equity: | (2022) |
| Location: | Nottingham, England, UK |
| Locations: | 31 |
| Former Name: | Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society |
The Nottingham Building Society is a building society in the UK, with its headquarters in Nottingham, England. It is a member of the Building Societies Association. At December 2022, the Society had total assets of more than £3.8 billion.[1]
The Society was founded in 1849 by a group led by Samuel Fox (1781–1868), a Quaker and prominent local grocer.
The purpose of the society was to promote the construction of a better class of dwellings, suitable for the working and middle classes, as well as provide a safe and profitable place for small savings.
The Nottingham Building Society was one of the first financial institutions to introduce online banking in 1983, with its 'Homelink' service on Prestel.
The society currently has 31 branches across nine counties, mainly across Nottinghamshire, but there is also a significant presence in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire.
The society's proposed purchase of a software system faced difficulties in 1992 because of the failing financial circumstances of the system's supplier, Eurodynamics Systems. In the course of a dispute between the society and Eurodynamics regarding non-payment of a number of disputed invoices, the software contract was terminated, both parties arguing that the other was in repudiatory breach of its contractual obligations. In responding to the society's request for an interim injunction compelling the supplier to provide the software, the judge, Chadwick, J (as he then was) sought to maintain the legal path which posed "the least risk of injustice" to the parties, deciding in favour of Nottingham Building Society.[2] Reference to "the least risk of injustice" has since been made in other legal cases.[3]