Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6248384 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6248384 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None |
Summary
Mr L complained that NatWest unfairly allowed gambling transactions on his credit card after he applied a gambling block in June 2025. The ombudsman reviewed credit card statements and found that while gambling transactions did occur after the block was applied, they were classified by overseas merchants using non-gambling merchant category codes such as digital goods or miscellaneous food stores. Since NatWest relies on merchant-assigned codes to identify gambling transactions and has no control over which codes merchants use, the ombudsman found NatWest could not have identified these transactions as gambling. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that gambling blocks function based on merchant category codes assigned by acquiring banks and payment processors, not by NatWest. Since the gambling transactions in question were classified with non-gambling codes (digital goods, miscellaneous food stores), NatWest had no way of identifying them as gambling transactions and therefore could not block them. NatWest has no influence over which MCC codes merchants use, making it unreasonable to hold NatWest responsible for transactions it could not identify as gambling.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company, all decisions | 1,194 | 14% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 34,193 | 32% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,052 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website