Not upheld: failure to prevent investment scam fraud complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S and Mr B complained to NatWest after falling victim to an investment scam involving a fake company (Company D) that convinced Mrs S to invest £40,500 through their NatWest account and other sources. NatWest rejected the claim, stating payments were credited to another bank account. The ombudsman found that while Payment 2 (£20,000 on 28 April 2025) should have triggered a human intervention due to its unusual size and suspicious pattern of credits from new accounts, such intervention would not have prevented the loss. Bank L's strong interventions on 25 April and 1 May 2025, including probing questions and scam warnings, failed to dissuade Mrs S because she was heavily influenced by the scammer to distrust banks and believed she was making significant profits. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Payment 2 (£20,000) should have triggered a human intervention due to its unusual size and the suspicious pattern of credits from new accounts, the ombudsman found that causation was not established. Bank L's strong interventions on 25 April and 1 May 2025, which included probing questions, scam warnings, and an investment scam video, failed to dissuade Mrs S because she was heavily influenced by the scammer to distrust banks and believed she was making significant profits. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs S would likely have provided a cover story to NatWest as well and would have insisted on making the payment, making it unlikely that an intervention would have prevented the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website