Not upheld: APP scam reimbursement claim; alleged failure to identify vulnerability and intervene complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6225292 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. APP scam reimbursement claim; alleged failure to identify vulnerability and intervene complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6225292 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | APP scam reimbursement claim; alleged failure to identify vulnerability and intervene |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint is not upheld and no reimbursement is ordered. |
Summary
Mr A claims he was manipulated, threatened and coerced by individuals M and H into transferring nearly £15,000 between August 2024 and August 2025 after meeting someone on a dating site. He requested reimbursement from NatWest under the CRM Code and Reimbursement Rules, arguing the payments were made under duress and that NatWest should have identified his vulnerabilities (recorded mental health condition and family pressures) and intervened. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Mr A paid the intended recipients and there is insufficient evidence that M and H acted fraudulently to deceive him about the payment purpose. The ombudsman also found the payments were not unusual enough to require intervention and that Mr A would likely not have disclosed the situation even if NatWest had questioned him due to fear of consequences.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mr A did not meet the definition of an APP scam victim under either the CRM Code or the Reimbursement Rules because he paid the party he intended to pay (M and H). To qualify, the ombudsman would need to be satisfied that M and H acted fraudulently and dishonestly to deceive Mr A about the purpose of the payments. However, there is conflicting evidence about whether services were provided, no contemporaneous evidence explaining the purpose of each payment, and no police report or evidence of coercion or threats at the time payments were made. The ombudsman also found that the payments were not so unusual or out of character as to require NatWest to intervene, as early transactions were low value and consistent with Mr A's previous payment history. Even if NatWest had intervened, Mr A likely would not have disclosed the true situation due to fear of consequences.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest), all decisions | 94 | 5% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website