Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that NatWest failed to remove a default from his credit record despite agreeing to do so in March 2024, which he discovered in October 2025. The default allegedly resulted from his ex-partner's debts after she was added as a joint accountholder. Mr R claimed this prevented him from upgrading his bank account with another provider, resulting in additional costs. NatWest provided £250 additional compensation after the error was discovered. The ombudsman found that while NatWest made a mistake, the compensation was fair and reasonable, and that the NatWest default could not be established as the sole cause of the account upgrade refusal due to another default on Mr R's credit card record.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while NatWest made a clear mistake in failing to remove the default as promised, the £250 additional compensation was fair and reasonable. The ombudsman could not establish that the NatWest default alone caused the account upgrade refusal, as Mr R had another default on his credit card record. The ombudsman also determined that parts of the complaint relating to the initial £500 compensation were outside jurisdiction as they were brought more than six months after NatWest's final response of 25 March 2024.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website