Not upheld: scam and fraud - refund of authorised payments complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G fell victim to a job task scam where he was required to make payments to access online tasks. He made numerous payments from his Nationwide account in January and February 2025, some via debit card and some via faster payments to his own accounts. When unable to withdraw funds, he requested reimbursement from Nationwide, claiming the firm should have prevented the scam. Nationwide intervened on some faster payments and warned Mr G about cryptoasset scams, but Mr G consistently explained the payments were for cryptoasset investments (and later wedding expenses) and appeared knowledgeable and independent. The ombudsman found that Mr G's failure to disclose the true purpose of the payments prevented Nationwide from identifying the scam, and that the payments were not unusual enough to warrant intervention. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that authorised payments should be processed. While Nationwide has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and identify vulnerable consumers at risk of scams, the ombudsman found that the debit card payments were not unusual or suspicious in value or velocity compared to Mr G's genuine account activity. Although Nationwide intervened on faster payments and warned about cryptoasset scams, Mr G provided consistent explanations about legitimate cryptoasset investments and appeared knowledgeable. Critically, Mr G did not disclose the true purpose of the payments, preventing Nationwide from identifying the scam. The ombudsman rejected the argument that previous victimisation should have triggered refusal to process payments, as Mr G had assured Nationwide he had learned from the experience and was acting independently. Chargeback was not viable as the funds were transferred to accounts in Mr G's own name where he had control and could access the cryptoassets.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website