Not upheld: account restrictions, fraud prevention, access to funds, customer behaviour warning complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Nationwide unfairly blocked his account and restricted his access to funds after he attempted to make a £3,000 transfer to an external account for sending abroad. Nationwide flagged the transaction as high-risk fraud and requested evidence of the payment's legitimacy, including recipient identification and proof of the stated loan. Mr L refused to provide this information, citing privacy concerns, and his explanation for the payment changed from loan repayment to emergency family medical support. Mr L also complained about a warning issued by Nationwide following a branch visit where staff perceived his behaviour as aggressive and space-invading. The ombudsman found that Nationwide's fraud prevention measures were reasonable and proportionate, that Mr L retained adequate access to his funds through direct debits, standing orders, and weekly cash withdrawals, and that the branch warning was justified based on CCTV evidence and staff safety concerns. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Nationwide's fraud prevention systems and account restrictions were reasonable and necessary to protect both the firm and the customer from potential scam activity. The inconsistency in Mr L's explanations (loan repayment versus emergency family support), the lack of evidence of the stated loan, the refusal to provide recipient identification, and the large value of the international transfer all constituted legitimate concerns. The ombudsman noted that Mr L retained reasonable access to his funds through direct debits, standing orders, incoming payments, and weekly cash withdrawals. The requirement to provide a UK bank account for closure proceeds was reasonable as it protected Mr L's interests. Regarding the branch warning, the ombudsman found that Nationwide had a duty to protect its staff and that the CCTV evidence supported the staff member's perception that personal space was being invaded, making the warning justified despite Mr L's explanation relating to his hearing impairment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website