Partially upheld: refusal to issue replacement card; misinformation by advisor complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6053808 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. refusal to issue replacement card; misinformation by advisor complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6053808 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | refusal to issue replacement card; misinformation by advisor |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | NatWest must pay £75 compensation to Mr U for the incorrect information provided by its advisor regarding account reinstatement. |
Summary
Mr U complained that NatWest refused to issue a new credit card after he cleared arrears on his account, despite an advisor telling him the account would resume normally once arrears were cleared. NatWest had fallen into arrears starting in September 2022 and agreed repayment arrangements with Mr U. When a new card was due in July 2024, NatWest refused to issue it due to the arrears status. After Mr U cleared the arrears in July 2025, NatWest still refused to issue a card. The ombudsman found that while NatWest acted within its contractual rights to refuse the card, the advisor's incorrect statement warranted compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, ordering NatWest to pay the £75 compensation it had already offered for the misinformation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
NatWest acted within its contractual rights to refuse to issue a new card given the arrears status and the account terms which allow such refusal where reasonable grounds exist to believe a consumer may have difficulty repaying. However, the advisor's incorrect statement that the account would resume as normal once arrears were cleared constituted an error for which compensation was warranted. The decision to refuse the card had already been made before the advisor's call, so the misinformation did not affect the outcome, but compensation was appropriate for the disappointment caused. Mr U was not entitled to the card he was wrongly told he would receive, but rather to be placed in the position he would have been in had he been correctly advised.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company, all decisions | 1,179 | 14% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 25,211 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website