Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Nationwide Building Society unfairly filed a Cifas fraud marker against him and closed his account after he received a £500 transfer that was later reported as fraudulent. Mr A claimed the £500 was an additional loan from a personal acquaintance, supplementing an initial £3,000 loan covered by a signed agreement. However, the ombudsman found Mr A's account inconsistent: he initially told Nationwide the payment was for services not yet rendered, later changed his story to claim it was a loan, produced an agreement only for the £3,000 amount, and failed to provide WhatsApp messages he claimed to have despite being asked. The ombudsman noted that most of the £500 was spent on gambling merchants, contradicting Mr A's claim about urgent car repairs, and concluded the evidence supported Nationwide's finding of complicity in fraudulent activity. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Mr A's explanations inconsistent and unconvincing. The initial description of the payment as being for services contradicted the later claim it was a loan. The signed agreement only covered £3,000, not the disputed £500. Mr A claimed to have WhatsApp messages as proof but did not provide them despite being asked, and only later claimed his phone was lost. The fact that most funds went to gambling merchants rather than car repairs as claimed, combined with the absence of tangible evidence directly from the sender supporting the £500 payment's legitimacy, suggested Mr A knew more than he was willing to disclose and had complicity in the underlying activity. The ombudsman found Nationwide's evidence clear, relevant, and rigorous enough to justify the marker and account closure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website