Not upheld: account restrictions - service failure and lack of evidence of loss complaint against Nationwide
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6249406 of 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00. account restrictions - service failure and lack of evidence of loss complaint against Nationwide. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6249406 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | account restrictions - service failure and lack of evidence of loss |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. The £100 payment already made by Nationwide was deemed sufficient to resolve the complaint. |
Summary
Mr L complained that Nationwide incorrectly maintained restrictions on his account in December 2025, preventing him from withdrawing £25,000 needed for a property purchase. He claimed this forced him to borrow £1,500 from a personal contact. While Nationwide acknowledged its error in failing to lift restrictions despite receiving required documentation and paid £100 compensation, the ombudsman found Mr L had not provided sufficient evidence of the claimed financial loss. The ombudsman upheld Nationwide's £100 payment as adequate resolution and did not uphold the complaint for additional compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While the ombudsman accepted that Nationwide made an error in maintaining the account restrictions and that a delay in accessing funds for a few days could foreseeably cause loss, Mr L failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he actually suffered the claimed £1,500 financial loss. Mr L did not provide full documentation of the property purchase, explain why he was funding part of the purchase price, or explain how the informal borrowing arrangement resulted in the specific £1,500 loss. The ombudsman found that Mr L had adequate opportunity to provide such evidence but did not do so.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide, all decisions | 2 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website