Not upheld: access to account services and misinformation regarding account management procedures complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H, who lives outside the UK, complained that he could not access his Nationwide savings account via internet or mobile banking because he does not hold a UK mobile number, and that he received incorrect information about account access and cheque cancellation procedures. Mr H was forced to travel to the UK to attempt to resolve the issue and incurred costs and inconvenience. Nationwide compensated him £90 for two instances of misinformation but maintained that its systems requiring UK mobile numbers for security purposes were reasonable. The ombudsman upheld Nationwide's position, finding that as a UK-based institution it is reasonable to configure security systems for UK residents, that Mr H can access his funds through branch visits, and that the £90 compensation already paid was fair and adequate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that Nationwide had not acted unfairly or unreasonably. While acknowledging Mr H's frustration about not being able to access his savings account electronically due to not holding a UK mobile number, the ombudsman found that: (1) Nationwide is a UK-based institution and it is not unreasonable for its security systems to be configured primarily for UK residents with UK mobile numbers; (2) Mr H can access his funds by visiting a branch in person, which means he is not being unfairly denied access to his money; (3) for a savings account (which is designed for depositing and saving rather than regular access), being limited to branch-based withdrawals is not unreasonable; (4) Mr H has a UK current account he can access, so he was not without access to funds; (5) the account was at risk of dormancy, suggesting it was not being used regularly; (6) Mr H's decision to travel to the UK was his choice and not a necessary consequence of Nationwide's actions; (7) the failure to set up a nominated account was due to name mismatches, not a Nationwide error; and (8) the £90 compensation already paid for the two instances of misinformation was fair and adequate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website