Veste

Upheld: incorrect correspondence and administrative error complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6309468 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. incorrect correspondence and administrative error complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6309468
Decision date2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
FirmNationwide Building Society
Productcredit card
Claim typeincorrect correspondence and administrative error
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyNationwide Building Society must pay £25 to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C applied for a credit card with Nationwide in October 2025 and received an incorrect email referring to a personal loan application and potential account restrictions, causing him distress and concern about compromised personal information. Nationwide confirmed the email was sent in error due to a staff member selecting the wrong product type, and Mr C's accounts had never been restricted. The ombudsman upheld the complaint but found the impact was limited and short-lived, as Mr C received clarification the same day, and upheld Nationwide's offer of £25 compensation as fair and reasonable redress.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman acknowledged that Mr C reasonably found the email alarming and distressing, and accepted it caused inconvenience, the impact was considered limited and short-lived. Nationwide's explanation that a staff member selected the wrong product type was credible and supported by evidence showing no actual account restrictions occurred. The ombudsman found that Mr C received prompt and reasonable clarification the same day, and that ongoing upset beyond the initial error should not be attributed to Nationwide. The ombudsman considered that an approval in principle remains subject to further checks including income verification, making the error plausible as a communication mistake rather than a fraud control failure.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Nationwide Building Society, all decisions13,25121%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website