Not upheld: fraud and scams - impersonation scam, failure to intervene complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B lost £2,189 to an impersonation scam on 6 January 2026 after a scammer posing as a Company A representative convinced her to transfer money to protect her accounts. She made four authorised card payments to legitimate international payment service providers (Firms L and W) after being instructed to download remote access software. NatWest declined to refund the money and signposted Ms B to the payment firms. The ombudsman found that while banks must monitor for fraud, the individual and collective payment amounts were relatively low, did not escalate in size, and were made to regulated firms, meaning NatWest was not required to intervene. The complaint was not upheld, though NatWest's £50 compensation for failing to note the initial claim conversation was deemed fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while NatWest should monitor accounts for fraud and unusual transactions, the four payments in this case did not present obvious red flags requiring intervention. The payments were relatively low amounts individually and collectively for a bank to intervene on, did not escalate in size, and were made to legitimate regulated payment service providers. Although Ms B's account was primarily used for small travel-related payments, customers can legitimately hold balances for specific purposes. The ombudsman concluded that NatWest could reasonably have had comfort in regulated firms monitoring accounts with better information on payment destinations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website