Not upheld: account closure and fraud marker registration complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6389386 of 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00. account closure and fraud marker registration complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6389386 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | account closure and fraud marker registration |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld, and NatWest was not asked to do anything further. |
Summary
Mrs S complained that NatWest unfairly closed her personal account and loaded a negative fraud marker after fraudulent payments were received and transferred through her accounts during July-August 2021. Mrs S claimed her sister had stolen her identity and facilitated the fraud without her knowledge. The ombudsman found that while NatWest had reasonable grounds to believe fraudulent funds entered Mrs S's account, Mrs S's explanations for how this occurred were implausible, including her claim she didn't notice significant balance fluctuations and that her sister accessed her online banking without her knowledge. The ombudsman concluded Mrs S was likely complicit in the fraud and upheld NatWest's decision to close the account and register the fraud marker.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the standard for registering a fraud marker, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a financial crime was committed and clear, relevant, and rigorous evidence that the consumer was deliberately dishonest in receiving fraudulent payments. While the ombudsman acknowledged Mrs S's explanation about her sister stealing her identity, they found several aspects implausible: (1) Mrs S's claim she didn't notice large credits to her account despite significant balance fluctuations; (2) the implausibility that her sister could access her online banking and carry out multiple transactions without her knowledge, given the security details required; (3) Mrs S's failure to take action when customers appeared at her property claiming they'd made holiday reservations; and (4) the lack of evidence that Mrs S contacted the holiday websites or police before they contacted her. The ombudsman concluded that on balance, Mrs S was likely complicit in the fraud and likely benefited from the fraudulent funds.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest), all decisions | 112 | 8% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website