Not upheld: scam/fraud - authorised push payment (APP scam) and failure to investigate builder complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5865403 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. scam/fraud - authorised push payment (APP scam) and failure to investigate builder complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5865403 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | scam/fraud - authorised push payment (APP scam) and failure to investigate builder |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs K obtained a mortgage extension from NatWest to fund a £100,000 home extension with Company C. After making staged payments totalling £100,000, they experienced slow work progression, poor quality, and ultimately had their roof dismantled without funds to replace it. Company C subsequently went into liquidation, and Mr and Mrs K discovered approximately 40 other families had similar experiences. They complained to NatWest seeking reimbursement as victims of a scam and argued NatWest should have investigated the builder before approving the mortgage extension. NatWest declined, classifying the matter as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld NatWest's position, finding insufficient evidence to prove fraud on the balance of probabilities and confirming NatWest had no obligation to investigate the builder when no scam concerns existed at the mortgage application stage.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the CRM Code definition of an APP scam, which requires both a misalignment between the customer's purpose and the fraudster's purpose, and dishonest deception. While there were concerning indicators (media reports, Trading Standards investigation, slow work progression, roof dismantling), the ombudsman found insufficient evidence to conclude on balance that Mr D and Company C never intended to complete the build. Company C did perform work that was continuing when the contract was terminated, and partially redacted bank statements prevented full analysis of spending patterns. The threshold for fraud is high (more likely than not), and the evidence fell short of this standard. The ombudsman also found NatWest was not required to conduct checks on the builder at the mortgage extension stage when no scam concerns existed.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest), all decisions | 91 | 6% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 25,098 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website