Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that NatWest held him liable for three loans totalling £24,000 taken out in his name without his knowledge or consent, allegedly by his father who later was sectioned. Mr H claimed he had no income and was unaware of the loans until after his father's sectioning. NatWest maintained it conducted proper affordability checks and had no reason to doubt the applications were genuine. The ombudsman found that biometric access logs, call recordings, and account audit trails demonstrated Mr H had access to his account and was aware of the loan funds being credited, contradicting his testimony. The ombudsman also found NatWest's affordability checks were proportionate and responsible, validating the declared income and finding no adverse credit information. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that biometric evidence showed the same device was used to access the account after the father's sectioning date, indicating Mr H had access. Call recordings confirmed Mr H was accessing the account in June and October 2024. The account was accessed on the date the second loan agreement was sent to the online mailbox, suggesting Mr H would have seen the loan notification. This evidence contradicted Mr H's testimony that he was unaware of the loans. Regarding affordability, NatWest's checks were proportionate given the loan size and the declared income, which was validated against account turnover and credit reference data showed no adverse information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website