Not upheld: standing order processing delay on bank holidays complaint against National Westminster Bank PLC (NatWest)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6266573 of 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00. standing order processing delay on bank holidays complaint against National Westminster Bank PLC (NatWest). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6266573 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank PLC (NatWest) |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | standing order processing delay on bank holidays |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was ordered. |
Summary
Mr S complained that NatWest failed to process his standing order on 1 January 2026 due to the bank holiday, causing him to incur late payment charges. NatWest explained that standing orders are not processed on bank holidays or weekends and are instead processed on the next working day, consistent with BACs system rules. The ombudsman found that NatWest's agent had explicitly informed Mr S of this limitation during the standing order setup call on 1 December 2025, and Mr S had agreed to it. The ombudsman concluded that NatWest acted correctly in accordance with industry-wide practice and its own terms and conditions, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that NatWest did not make an error because standing orders and direct debits in the UK are only processed on working days under the BACs system, which is industry-wide practice. NatWest's agent had explicitly informed Mr S of this limitation during the setup call, and Mr S agreed to it. The terms and conditions and website guidance also clearly stated this policy. Since the BACs system is external to NatWest and determines payment timing, NatWest cannot be held responsible for delays caused by non-working days.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank PLC (NatWest), all decisions | 5 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website