Not upheld: unauthorized third-party account access and account management authority verification complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M1, holding power of attorney for Mr N, complained that Nationwide Building Society had incorrectly allowed Mrs M2 to operate Mr N's account since 2008 without his knowledge, approval, or consent. In February 2025, Nationwide informed Mrs M1 that Mrs M2 had been recorded as holding power of attorney, but Mr N had no recollection of this arrangement and believed it fraudulent. Office of the Public Guardian searches found no registered legal authority for Mrs M2. Nationwide could not produce records from 2008 documenting the basis for Mrs M2's authorization. The ombudsman found no persuasive evidence that Nationwide acted wrongly in 2008, considering it likely that Nationwide had verified authority before granting access and that the long period of operation without issues supported the inference of Mr N's consent. The ombudsman also found Nationwide's 2025 safeguarding actions to be fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, finding that while Nationwide could not produce detailed records from 2008, it was reasonable that such records were not retained given data protection laws and the 18-year time period. The ombudsman considered it likely that Nationwide had verified Mrs M2's authority before granting access, and the absence of issues during the long period of account operation supported the inference that the arrangement had Mr N's consent. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the absence of documentation constituted a failing, noting that Nationwide had good reason for not retaining such old records. Regarding 2025, the ombudsman found Nationwide's safeguarding actions to be prompt, fair, and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website