Not upheld: unclear and misleading information regarding dormant account recovery process complaint against NatWest

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that NatWest provided unclear, contradictory, and misleading information when she attempted to recover funds from a dormant account to switch to another bank. Her initial reclaim form submission was rejected because she did not provide certified copies of ID documents and provided an invalid electronic signature rather than a wet signature. NatWest had explained the requirements in its initial letter of 21 September 2025 and reiterated them in subsequent letters, though the reclaim form itself did not explicitly state these requirements. The ombudsman found that NatWest provided adequate information and that Miss C's signature was not valid as required by the form. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that NatWest adequately communicated the requirements for reclaiming a dormant account through multiple letters and the reclaim form itself. The requirement for certified ID copies was explained in the initial letter of 21 September and reiterated in subsequent correspondence. The reclaim form explicitly stated 'full and valid signatures' were required, and the signature Miss C provided was not a valid wet signature but appeared to be created using a Word font. The ombudsman noted Miss C had adequate information but did not submit a new claim until February 2026, over three months after the initial rejection. Regarding the Mitek procedure, NatWest acted reasonably by advising the FOS within a reasonable timeframe after its introduction.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website