Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Miss U paid £5,205 to an alleged landlord 'S' for rental property through NatWest between July 2025, believing the arrangement was genuine. After discovering the property did not exist, she claimed it was an APP scam and requested a refund. NatWest initially raised a claim but closed it after Miss U indicated she had received keys. When Miss U requested reopening, NatWest declined without new material evidence. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of criminal fraud to satisfy the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules, citing limited communications, atypical scam characteristics, and absence of police investigation, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme and CHAPS Reimbursement Rules (effective from 7 October 2024), which require APP scams to involve criminal fraud or dishonesty. Using the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that fraud was more probable than not. Key factors included: limited documentary evidence of communications; lack of clarity on what was agreed between parties; atypical scam characteristics (continued contact months after payment, communications unrelated to property); absence of substantive police investigation or charges; and the need for compelling evidence before requiring a firm to refund. The ombudsman distinguished this from a private civil dispute.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website