Veste

Not upheld: scam liability and fraud prevention complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6325798 of 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00. scam liability and fraud prevention complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6325798
Decision date2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
FirmNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Productcurrent account
Claim typescam liability and fraud prevention
OutcomeNot upheld
Remedy£75 goodwill payment already provided by NatWest for poor service in responding to the scam claim complaint (delay from November 2025 to January 2026). No additional remedy ordered.

Summary

Mr C lost £1,740 to a cryptocurrency scam after meeting someone online who convinced him to make four payments between 27-30 September 2025. NatWest blocked some payments but unblocked them after Mr C confirmed they were genuine, and refused to refund the loss, offering only £75 for poor service. The ombudsman found NatWest not liable because the payments were authorised by Mr C and were not so unusual or out of character as to require additional scam warnings, given their individual size (under £490 each) and limited number. The £75 compensation for service delays was upheld as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the starting position that banks must process authorised payments. Although Mr C authorised the payments unknowingly as a scam victim, this does not change their authorised status. The ombudsman found NatWest's intervention through blocking was appropriate given the payment sizes (all under £490), the small number of transactions (four total), and combined value. The payments were not so unusual or out of character as to require additional scam warnings. NatWest balanced fraud prevention with minimal disruption to legitimate payments appropriately.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions1,17914%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website