Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M was the victim of an impersonation scam where he was contacted by someone claiming to be from the FCA and instructed to make credit card payments for gold bullion as part of a supposed investigation. Between 14-16 December 2025, he made three payments totalling £17,800 on his NatWest credit card. NatWest intervened at the second payment by placing it on hold and asking questions through its fraud team, but Mr M, following the scammers' instructions, provided a false explanation (Christmas presents). Mr M complained that NatWest failed to protect him from the scam and sought a refund. The ombudsman found that while NatWest should have intervened at the second payment, it did so appropriately with reasonable questions, and concluded that Mr M would not have revealed the scam regardless of further intervention due to explicit instructions from the scammers to maintain a false narrative. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr M authorised the transactions, NatWest had a duty to protect customers from fraud. Although NatWest should have intervened at the second payment (which it did), the ombudsman concluded that NatWest's intervention was reasonable and proportionate. The fraud team asked open questions directed at identifying third-party involvement and Mr M's true instructions. Critically, the ombudsman found that Mr M had been specifically instructed by the scammers to provide a plausible explanation and not disclose the scam. The ombudsman was not persuaded that more probing questions would have changed the outcome, as Mr M was actively maintaining the false narrative he had been coached to adopt and would not have revealed the scam regardless of further intervention.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website