Not upheld: unauthorized transactions dispute and account closure complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained to Nationwide Building Society in July 2025 about disputed transactions totaling £25,302.24 dating back to 2021, claiming he had been outside the UK and unable to check his account. He also alleged racial discrimination by Nationwide staff and sought £13.1 million in compensation. Nationwide declined to refund him, citing technical evidence that his Touch ID/facial recognition had been used to access his account, and gave notice of account closure. The ombudsman found that transactions reported more than 13 months after occurring fell outside the regulatory reporting window, and that technical evidence made it more likely Mr M had authorized the remaining disputed transactions. The ombudsman clarified that racial discrimination claims require court determination and found Nationwide's account closure was within its contractual rights. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require customers to report unauthorized transactions within 13 months. Since Mr M first reported the dispute in July 2025, transactions before June 2024 fell outside the reporting window and did not require consideration. For transactions between June 2024 and July 2025, the technical evidence showing Mr M's Touch ID/facial recognition was used, combined with Mr M's confirmation that no one else had access to his account, made it more likely than not that Mr M authorized the transactions himself. The ombudsman noted that Mr M provided no evidence of earlier contact with Nationwide despite claiming four years of regular contact. Regarding the racial discrimination claim, the ombudsman clarified that only a court can determine whether the Equality Act 2010 was breached, though the call recording did not support Mr M's specific allegations about racist language. The account closure was within Nationwide's contractual rights and was not unfair given the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website