Not upheld: scam reimbursement / authorised push payment fraud complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Decision detail

Summary

Miss J complained that NatWest failed to reimburse £56,209.14 lost to an investment scam operated by entity 'H' through payments made between September 2022 and July 2023. NatWest declined reimbursement, stating the payments were not covered by the CRM Code and were not unusual enough to warrant intervention. The ombudsman found that Miss J's testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies including initially misleading NatWest about a payment's purpose and failing to disclose earlier HyperDrive membership purchases until prompted. While one email from H coincided with a cryptocurrency payment, the ombudsman could not safely conclude the funds were forwarded to H, and the initial and final payments had no evidence linking them to H. The complaint was not upheld, and NatWest's decision to decline reimbursement was found to be reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss J's testimony was unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies: she initially misled NatWest about a payment's purpose, failed to mention earlier HyperDrive membership purchases until prompted, and claimed to only later realize earlier payments were connected to the scam. While one email from H dated 23 January 2023 coincided with a complained-about payment, the ombudsman could not safely conclude the cryptocurrency payments were forwarded to H because: (1) the conversion amount listed in a subsequent email did not convert to any standard currency, making it impossible to quantify funds sent to H; (2) Miss J may have sent funds directly to 'garyokx', an individual helping her with H; and (3) the initial four payments and final two payments had no evidence linking them to H whatsoever. The lack of evidence linking most payments to the scam, combined with Miss J's inconsistent testimony and evidence of her involvement with H dating back a year before the complained-about payments, meant the ombudsman could not conclude on the balance of probabilities that the funds were lost to the specific scam described.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website