Not upheld: security enforcement and discretionary asset possession complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5926261 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. security enforcement and discretionary asset possession complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5926261 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY |
| Product | Overdraft |
| Claim type | security enforcement and discretionary asset possession |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr A's difficult situation but stated that NatWest remains required to treat him fairly when considering repayment solutions or proposals for outstanding debt. The ombudsman recommended Mr A seek independent advice on the outstanding debt and his dispute with his former landlord. |
Summary
Mr A, a sole trader farmer, complained that NatWest should have taken possession of agricultural assets he had granted as security under a 2017 charge to recover outstanding overdraft debt after his landlord allegedly illegally took possession of those assets. NatWest had issued a £60,000 overdraft in September 2023 expiring in March 2024, which was not renewed, and subsequently demanded repayment of all lending in July 2025. The ombudsman found that NatWest had legitimate commercial discretion regarding security enforcement and was not obliged to take possession of the assets, particularly given the timing of the formal demand. The ombudsman also declined to require NatWest to assist Mr A in addressing alleged criminal conduct by his landlord, characterizing this as a matter for Mr A and the police. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman concluded that lenders are not generally obliged to take possession of secured assets merely because they have demanded repayment of outstanding lending. The charge deed explicitly states the bank 'may' take possession, indicating discretionary rather than mandatory action. The ombudsman found NatWest had legitimate commercial discretion in deciding whether and when to enforce its security. The fact that NatWest only formally demanded repayment in July 2025 supported the view that the bank was not obliged to take earlier action. The ombudsman also determined that allegations of criminal conduct by the landlord are primarily a matter between Mr A and the landlord, and for the police, not something NatWest could be fairly required to assist with.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions | 1,179 | 14% |
| Overdraft, all decisions | 3,791 | 24% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website