Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent/intervene complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M lost over £20,000 to an investment scam, making four payments from his NatWest account between July and August 2025. He requested NatWest refund the losses, arguing the bank should have done more to prevent the scam. While the ombudsman found NatWest should have intervened on the first crypto payment with questions and a tailored warning, it concluded such intervention would not have prevented the scam because Mr M had demonstrated willingness to provide misleading answers and had ignored similar warnings from his other account provider. The complaint was not upheld as NatWest could not fairly be held liable for the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While NatWest should have intervened on the first crypto payment with questions and tailored warning, the ombudsman found such intervention would not have prevented the scam. Mr M had already demonstrated willingness to provide misleading answers to the crypto exchange (only days later), and he failed to heed similar warnings from his other account provider that specifically mentioned investment scam features he was experiencing. Therefore, an appropriate and proportionate intervention by NatWest would likely have been ineffective. Additionally, funds could not be recovered through reimbursement schemes as they were sent to accounts in Mr M's own name.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website