Not upheld: account closure and regulatory compliance complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Nationwide unfairly closed his accounts and was unhappy about receiving his closing balance in cash. Nationwide had contacted Mr K in January 2025 requesting information about his account activity and source of funds, which Mr K provided with supporting documentation indicating investment and trading activities. After reviewing this information, Nationwide froze Mr K's accounts and subsequently closed them immediately, offering Mr K the option of a cheque, bank transfer, or cash withdrawal. Mr K chose cash but felt anxious about transporting the funds and waited approximately 30 minutes in branch. Mr K also claimed discrimination based on age and race. The ombudsman found Nationwide's actions were justified by its regulatory obligations to verify source of funds and monitor customer accounts, that the information provided was reasonably deemed insufficient, and that the account closure complied with the terms and conditions. The ombudsman rejected the discrimination claim and noted Mr K was offered alternative withdrawal methods but chose cash himself.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Nationwide's actions were justified by its legal and regulatory obligations to verify source of funds and conduct ongoing monitoring of customer accounts. The information Mr K provided was deemed insufficient by Nationwide, and the ombudsman, having reviewed confidential evidence, found this assessment was not unreasonable. Nationwide complied with its account terms and conditions by freezing and then immediately closing the account in certain circumstances. The ombudsman rejected the discrimination claim, finding Nationwide's actions were motivated by regulatory compliance rather than discriminatory intent. Regarding fund withdrawal, the ombudsman noted Mr K was offered alternatives (cheque and bank transfer) but chose cash withdrawal himself, and the 30-minute wait was not excessive.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website