Not upheld: Mortgage administration / arrears handling complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6440017 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Mortgage administration / arrears handling complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6440017 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | Mortgage administration / arrears handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman declined to award compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr C complained that NatWest applied a fixed interest rate to his joint mortgage without his knowledge or consent in September 2025, despite his explicit refusal of such applications since mid-2024 due to early repayment charge concerns. The property was subject to a court order requiring sale by March 2026, and Mr C had previously cancelled a fixed rate application in July 2025. NatWest did not uphold the complaint, arguing the fixed rate made the mortgage more affordable and that Mr C's ex-partner would be liable for any early repayment charges. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that while notification should have occurred, the fixed rate actually benefited Mr C by lowering payments and reducing credit file risk, no actual financial loss had occurred, and NatWest intended to pursue the ex-partner for any future early repayment charges.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While the ombudsman acknowledged that NatWest should have notified Mr C of the interest rate change and that applying a product to a jointly liable mortgage without consent raised initial concerns, the complaint was not upheld because: (1) the fixed rate actually benefited Mr C by lowering monthly payments and reducing the likelihood of arrears appearing on his credit file; (2) no application fees were charged; (3) the potential ERC liability had not materialized and NatWest stated it would pursue the ex-partner for any ERC; (4) Mr C had not suffered actual financial loss; and (5) the distress caused did not warrant compensation given the circumstances. The ombudsman noted this was a matter of fairness and reasonableness rather than strict contractual interpretation, and declined to address the broader legal question of whether a contract can be unilaterally varied by internal policy, noting that was a matter for the courts.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions | 1,194 | 14% |
| Mortgage administration / arrears handling, all decisions | 13,247 | 19% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 24,695 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website