National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-5901164

The complaint A limited company, which I'll refer to as ‘V’, complains that National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (“NatWest”) acted unfairly in issuing formal demands and defaulting its business account and Bounce Back Loan. V’s complaint is brought to this service by its director, whom I’ll refer to as ‘Mrs L’. What happened V took out a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”) with NatWest in May 2020. V subsequently used all of the available Pay As You Grow (“PAYG”) payment deferral options, and from January 2025, V stopped making the contractually required monthly payments to the loan. Because of this, the BBL fell into arrears. In mid-May 2025, Mrs L spoke with NatWest about V’s financial difficulties and explained that V was experiencing cashflow problems due to delayed invoices. Mrs L told NatWest that V intended to clear the loan arrears by the end of June. In response, NatWest asked Mrs L to complete an income and expenditure assessment form so they could consider whether a repayment plan for V might be appropriate. Mrs L sent this information on 27 May, and NatWest received it the following day. NatWest explain that after receiving the form they needed to discuss some points with Mrs L before a plan could be agreed. Their records include that they attempted to call Mrs L on 29 and 30 May and left voicemails on both occasions, and that they also sent a letter to V dated 30 May, an email, and a text message. NatWest say that none of these were responded to. Conversely, Mrs L says that she didn’t receive any of those communications. Because NatWest didn’t hear from V and because the arrears remained unresolved, they issued formal demands to V on 16 June for the business current account and the BBL, requiring the balances to be repaid in full by 24 June. Mrs L says she didn’t receive these demands until 25 June, after the deadline for responding had already passed, and Mrs L also says the BBL notice didn’t include a deadline at all. When Mrs L did receive the formal demands, she immediately contacted NatWest and said she was ready to pay the arrears by early July, but she was told the accounts had already entered the recoveries process and the notices couldn't be withdrawn. Mrs L wasn’t happy that NatWest had defaulted the BBL and closed the current account, so she made a complaint to NatWest on V’s behalf. NatWest responded to Mrs L but didn’t feel they’d done anything wrong and explained they had sent the letters and messages to V and that the accounts were correctly transferred to recoveries because the arrears hadn’t been cleared and the contractual payments had not been made since January. Mrs L wasn’t satisfied with NatWest’s response, so she referred V’s complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked at this complaint, but they didn’t feel that NatWest had acted unfairly as Mrs L contended and didn’t uphold the complaint. Mrs L remained dissatisfied, so the matter was escalated to an ombudsman for a final decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. It’s not in dispute that V stopped making its Bounce Back Loan repayments in January 2025. From that point onwards, the loan was in arrears, and unless V could clear those arrears and resume the monthly contractual payments, the loan was at risk of default. Because of this, I’m satisfied that V already had an obligation to ensure that it was meeting NatWest’s requirements, independently of any later issues about communication. And it seems clear to me that Mrs L was aware of the arrears situation and of the need to resolve it. Mrs L says V didn’t receive any of NatWest’s attempted contact between 29 May and 16 June. NatWest, on the other hand, has provided system logs showing that they generated calls, voicemails, a letter, an email and a text message. Based on the weight of evidence, I feel it’s more likely than not that NatWest did try to contact V in the manner they have described. I also feel that, on balance, it’s more likely than not that V did receive at least some of those contact attempts. However, even if I were to accept Mrs L’s position that she didn’t receive any of them, I don’t think it would change the outcome here. That’s because Mrs L already knew the loan was in arrears and that further dialogue with NatWest was required to come to a formal agreement on how those arrears were to be managed. And I feel that, in those circumstances, Mrs L would reasonably have been expected to follow up with NatWest when she hadn’t heard back from them – particularly given the seriousness of the arrears and the risk of further action. Mrs L also says that the formal demands were delivered after the response period had already expired, and that the BBL notice didn’t contain a date. I understand why she found that upsetting, but I feel it stands to reason that the two demands, posted on the same day, would have the same deadline date. And given that Mrs L has explained that she received the demands after the deadline had expired, the lack of a date on one of those demands had no material impact. I’m also satisfied that NatWest posted those notices with reasonable time for them to be delivered, and I wouldn’t hold NatWest accountable for any delays in delivery that occurred. I’m also not persuaded that if Mrs L received the notices earlier it would have made a difference to the outcome. I take this position because V had not made any contractual repayments since January, and the arrears had grown. To prevent default, V would have needed to clear those arrears and maintain ongoing contractual payments. There’s no evidence that V was in a position to do that by 24 June. And although Mrs L says expected invoices would have cleared the arrears by the end of June, when funds did arrive in July, they were transferred out of the account rather than used to reduce the outstanding arrears. That suggests to me that even with more time, the arrears would still likely have remained unpaid, and I don’t find Mrs L’s contention that she intended to clear the account arrears in July to be persuasive, given that she didn’t. Mrs L feels that NatWest acted too quickly, especially as she had submitted the income and expenditure information on 27 May. But that was only the first step in the process, and I feel it should reasonably have been understood by Mrs L that the submission of that form didn’t constitute an arrangement and that NatWest still needed to speak with her before any formal plan could be agreed. And because V didn’t respond to NatWest’s attempt to contact it, and didn’t contact NatWest itself, the position of V’s account continued to deteriorate. Given that context, including the prolonged nature of the arrears, the severity of the account position, and the nearly three-week gap between NatWest receiving the income and expenditure form and issuing the formal demand wherein no engagement from V was

-- 2 of 3 --

received, I don’t think NatWest acted prematurely in issuing the demands when they did. I also feel that because of the severity of the situation, the onus was on V to ensure that it was meeting NatWest’s requirements, and I don’t feel that Mrs L’s explanation that she thought the loan, with its several months of non-payment and accrued arrears, was on hold while NatWest considered the form she had submitted, is reasonable. All of which means that I won’t be upholding this complaint. This is because I’m satisfied that NatWest were entitled to issue the formal demands and to transfer the accounts to recoveries when the arrears remained unpaid. I appreciate why Mrs L is unhappy about what happened, and I recognise that V was experiencing financial difficulty. But I’m not persuaded that NatWest treated V unfairly in consideration of the missed payments and the lack of engagement from V at a crucial time. Finally, Mrs L has raised concerns about the way NatWest investigated this complaint. However, this service can only consider points of complaint about regulated financial matters, and how a business handles a complaint is not a regulated financial matter, even when the subject matter of that complaint is a regulated financial matter. Put more simply, this service cannot consider a complaint about how a business had handled a complaint. I appreciate this won’t be the outcome Mrs L was wanting, but I hope she will understand, given what I’ve explained, why I’ve made the final decision that I have. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask V to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Paul Cooper Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --