Not upheld: fraud reimbursement - irresponsible lending/payment processing complaint against Nationwide Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6119403 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. fraud reimbursement - irresponsible lending/payment processing complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6119403 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide Building Society |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | fraud reimbursement - irresponsible lending/payment processing |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None - complaint not upheld |
Summary
Mrs W lost money to an employment scam where she was instructed to fund her own account and eventually convert funds to cryptocurrency. Nationwide detected the suspicious transaction and called Mrs W before processing, warning her that fraudsters ask customers to lie. However, Mrs W misled Nationwide about the payment's purpose and source of instruction. The ombudsman found that Mrs W was being coached by the fraudster and was unwilling to follow her bank's advice, making it unlikely that Nationwide could have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although Nationwide detected the risk and intervened with a call, Mrs W deliberately misled the representative about the purpose of the payments and the source of the instruction. The ombudsman found that Mrs W was being coached by the fraudster on what to say and was placing the fraudster's advice above that of her bank. The level of questioning was proportionate to the responses given, and Mrs W appeared persuasive and not suspicious. Given that Mrs W was withholding the true purpose and was willing to follow the fraudster's instructions over her bank's warnings, it was unlikely that Nationwide would have been able to prevent the fraud even with more information.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide Building Society, all decisions | 13,251 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website