Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M applied for additional mortgage borrowing with Nationwide in October 2025 to consolidate debts and fund home improvements. Nationwide declined the application citing a financial association with a third party (Miss M's partner) who had adverse credit information, despite Miss M's own creditworthiness and mortgage conduct being satisfactory. Miss M complained that the decision was unfair and that Nationwide should not have proceeded with a property valuation once it had concerns about the application. The ombudsman found that Nationwide's concern about the financial association was reasonable, its lending decision was within its commercial discretion, and it was not obliged to postpone the valuation as it had not determined the application would fail and Miss M incurred no costs. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Nationwide's concern about the financial association was not unreasonable given the evidence of the third party living at the property and bank statement transfers. Lenders are entitled to make commercial decisions about lending policies and risk appetite. While Nationwide could have postponed the valuation, it was not obliged to do so as it did not know the application would be declined until underwriter review, Miss M incurred no costs, and she did not express difficulty in arranging the valuation. The application process involved some inevitable inconvenience and risk of rejection, and Nationwide provided a decision within a reasonable timeframe.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website