Not upheld: APP fraud / scam losses - failure to intervene complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs D complained that Nationwide Building Society failed to protect Mr D from a job scam by not intervening earlier in a series of escalating cryptocurrency and e-money payments made between 21-23 August 2025. Mr D lost £3,444 after being recruited into a fake commission-based job offering high earnings for liking videos. The scammers instructed him to open accounts with a crypto exchange (Company K) and e-money institution (Firm R) and make increasing payments to access higher-earning tasks. Nationwide intervened at the eighth payment attempt and stopped further loss. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that while Nationwide must protect customers from fraud, the first seven payments did not present sufficiently heightened fraud indicators to require earlier intervention, and Nationwide's action at payment 8 was appropriate and timely.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Consumer Duty requirements, recognising that while building societies must protect customers from fraud, they must balance this against inconveniencing legitimate transactions. Although the complaint highlighted a rapid, escalating pattern of payments to crypto and e-money platforms over three days, the ombudsman found that payments 1-7 individually and collectively did not present sufficiently heightened fraud indicators requiring intervention. Payments 1-4 were very low amounts (£150 total), payments 5-6 were still relatively low despite increasing, and payment 7 went to a regulated firm (Firm R) which provided comfort. Only payment 8, being higher than previous payments, to what appeared to be a new payee, and following receipt of funds, presented a realistic opportunity for intervention—which Nationwide did undertake. The ombudsman noted that even if earlier intervention had occurred, the scammers would likely have coached Mr D to answer security questions correctly to avoid warnings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website