Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J, a retired woman with health concerns, fell victim to an investment scam in May 2025 after seeing a fake investment opportunity endorsed by the Prime Minister on social media. Over the course of two months, she made seven payments totalling £62,255 from her Nationwide account to a Firm W account after being coerced by scammers using threats and psychological manipulation, and she took out £80,000 in loans to fund the scheme. When the scam was uncovered, Mrs J claimed refunds from all financial institutions involved. While Bank H provided a full refund and Firm W provided a 25% partial refund, Nationwide rejected her claim. The ombudsman found that although Nationwide should have implemented human interventions at the first two large payments (£24,250 and £10,000) given their inconsistency with her normal spending patterns, the complaint was not upheld because the ombudsman concluded that Mrs J would likely have been untruthful with Nationwide agents and found alternative means to make the payments, as evidenced by her dishonesty with other banks despite their investment scam warnings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Nationwide should have implemented human interventions at payments 1 and 2 due to the unusual pattern (large amounts inconsistent with normal spending, credits into account suggesting multi-stage payments), causation was not established. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs J would likely have been untruthful with Nationwide agents (as she was with Bank L and Firm W), would have continued with her cover story about a family wedding, and would have found alternative means to make the payments even if Nationwide had blocked them. The ombudsman noted that Bank L's interventions with investment scam warnings and education did not prevent Mrs J's loss despite her clear communication abilities and understanding of the warnings. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on Mrs J's age and health concerns alone, finding no evidence of vulnerability and noting she remained in employment with clear communication.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website