National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-5865931

The complaint Ms H complains NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest) registered a fraud marker against her. What happened The details of this complaint are known to both parties, so I will not repeat them in full here. Instead, I will focus on the key points and explain the reasons for my decision. NatWest registered a CIFAS marker against Ms H. Our investigator reviewed the complaint and did not ask NatWest to take any further action. He considered the bank’s decision to register the marker to be fair, given the account activity and the fact that Ms H did not report her card or device as lost or stolen. He was satisfied Ms H remained in control of the account and, because fraudulent funds entered the account and were then transferred out, he concluded the CIFAS marker had been recorded accurately. Ms H did not agree. Her representative said the account had been compromised and that a phone call demonstrated someone had been impersonating her. As an agreement could not be reached, the complaint has now been passed to me to review. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with our investigator for broadly the same reasons. A business can apply a fraud marker when it has reasonable grounds to believe fraud has been committed or attempted. CIFAS requires evidence that is clear, relevant, and sufficiently rigorous that the conduct could be reported to the police. The marker should not be applied to someone who was unwitting, so there must be evidence pointing to deliberate involvement or awareness. I’m satisfied NatWest met these requirements. I say that because: • Ms H received two payments totalling £20,000, which NatWest has shown were fraudulent. • The funds were transferred out rapidly across separate transactions, demonstrating quick onward movement typical of account misuse. • Throughout this period, regular transactions continued, including cash withdrawals. • Ms H did not report any unknown activity, nor did she report her card, device, PIN, or online credentials as lost or compromised. • The online activity shows the correct credentials were used, and there is no persuasive evidence of third-party access.

-- 1 of 2 --

If Ms H had genuinely lost control of her account, I would reasonably expect her to report either the loss of her banking credentials or the unauthorised transactions. She did neither. Her explanation does not account for how a third party could have passed NatWest’s security checks without her involvement or knowledge. The reference to a phone call does not provide evidence of unauthorised access or explain how the caller obtained all the necessary security information. Taken together, this evidence leads me to conclude that, on balance, Ms H was more likely than not complicit in the receipt and movement of the fraudulent funds – either through her own actions or by allowing someone else to use her account. That means she was likely aware the funds were illegitimate. Because of this, I’m satisfied NatWest met the evidential standard required to apply the CIFAS marker, and I will not be directing it to take any further action. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I do not uphold this decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms H to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Hayley West Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --