Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent fraudulent payment complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that NatWest should refund over £2,000 she lost to a scam involving a fake employment opportunity. She was instructed to make periodic payments to unlock tasks, but the funds ultimately went to scammers. NatWest refused to refund her, and the FOS Investigator did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman upheld this decision, finding that the payments were not suspicious in amount, frequency, or destination, and did not present sufficient red flags to require NatWest to intervene. The ombudsman noted that while banks must monitor for fraud, they cannot reasonably check every payment, and the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code did not apply as the payments were made to Miss M's own accounts. No refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss M was a victim of a scam, being scammed does not automatically entitle a customer to reimbursement. NatWest would only be liable if it should have reasonably prevented the payments or hindered recovery. The payments were not suspicious in amount, frequency, or destination. The ombudsman noted that payments to cryptocurrency exchanges are not automatically suspicious, particularly without other concerning factors. The scammer was guiding Miss M on how to make payments, so blocking one route would likely have resulted in the scammer directing her to use alternative methods. The Contingent Reimbursement Model Code does not apply as the payments were made to Miss M's own accounts, not to another person.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website