Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against National Westminster Bank PLC (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W complained that NatWest failed to support her after she disclosed a gambling addiction to the bank's fraud team in January 2025, requesting refund of gambling transactions from that date onwards. NatWest acknowledged it should have offered a gambling block and paid £400 compensation. The ombudsman found that while NatWest's failure to respond was a missed opportunity, Mrs W had already applied a gambling block before disclosing her addiction, self-excluded from gambling, and subsequently used unregulated operators and third-party payments to circumvent safeguards. The ombudsman concluded that earlier intervention would not likely have altered Mrs W's gambling behaviour and upheld NatWest's £400 compensation as fair, declining to order refund of gambling losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while NatWest failed to respond to Mrs W's disclosure of gambling addiction in January 2025 and should have offered support, Mrs W had already applied a gambling block before disclosing her addiction and subsequently self-excluded. The evidence showed Mrs W was aware of the gambling block's limitations and used payment methods that would bypass such protections. The ombudsman concluded that even if NatWest had intervened in January 2025, it would not likely have altered the course of Mrs W's gambling because she actively circumvented available safeguards by using unregulated operators and third-party payments. Therefore, the £400 compensation already paid was a fair response to NatWest's limited failing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website