National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6116015

The complaint Mrs J says National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) failed to protect her from final harm when she fell victim to scam. What happened The facts of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in detail here. In short, Mrs J says she discovered transactions on her account which she didn’t authorise or know about. She says she was contacted in relation to a scam she’d fallen victim to previously and was told she would need to pay taxes and fees to release the funds that were being held. Mrs J says NatWest ought to have done more to protect her from financial harm here, and so it should refund the payments she made to the scammer. NatWest reviewed this complaint but decided not to uphold it. It felt that it had done everything it could reasonably have been expected to do in the circumstances. So, it didn’t refund any of the payments Mrs J says she made to the scammer. Unhappy with this response, Mrs J brought her complaint to us. Our investigator considered this complaint but felt that NatWest had made appropriate interventions, so he didn’t think it would be fair to ask NatWest to refund this money. Mrs J wasn’t happy with this outcome, so the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision. 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. Before I set out my thoughts, I want to acknowledge that I have summarised this complaint briefly and, in less detail, than has been provided. I’ve focused on what I think is the heart of the matter. Please rest assured that while I may not comment on every point raised, I have considered it. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this and reflect the fact that we are an informal service and a free alternative for consumers to the courts. Mrs J says she wasn’t aware of the transactions and didn’t authorise them. Our investigator considered the issue of authorisation in his view and based on the evidence came to the outcome that the transactions were authorised by Mrs J. She then responded stating that as she was deceived and coerced into sending these funds to the scammer under the belief that she would receive her original investment gains in return – so they were not authorised. However, under the rules outlined in the Payment Services Regulation, being coerced or tricked into making a payment doesn’t make it unauthorised. I have considered the details of the scam below; however, this is separate to the issue of authorisation. As outlined by the investigator, the transactions were made from the same device as authorised transactions, and Mrs J had spoken to NatWest about making some of the transactions when it

-- 1 of 2 --

intervened. So, I have no plausible evidence to suggest these transactions were made by anyone else other than Mrs J – therefore I agree these were authorised. In response to the initial assessment Mrs J says she still feels NatWest ought to have done more to protect her. She says that she had reservations at the time, and even though she was not honest with her responses to the interventions, NatWest ought to have recognised this as a common feature of scams such as this. I have considered this below. As outlined by the investigator, the initial transactions were not significantly high in nature to have been flagged by NatWest. The payments were largely to individual accounts, and there was no indication to NatWest that these accounts could’ve been held by scammers. Her account was only a month old when the transactions started, so there was also no way of NatWest knowing what was “out of character” for her. However, I have seen that NatWest flagged some of the transactions in dispute and intervened. The first intervention was for a £5,000 payment to a new payee, and due to the value of this payment and the fact that it was a new payee – I think this was a reasonable time to intervene. NatWest tried to contact Mrs J about this payment, but as the were unable to talk to her about this, the transaction was blocked. Then, when Mrs J tried to make another high value payment of £5,000 – NatWest intervened again. And at this point, even though NatWest were able to get in touch with Mrs J it still wasn’t confident with the answers Mrs J gave so it blocked the payment. While I take on board what Mrs J has said about customers giving false information being a common circumstance in scam cases, this does not increase the bank’s responsibility to make proportionate and reasonable interventions. I do note that other banks who took further steps and evoked the banking protocol were still unable to uncover the scam due to Mrs J’s dishonesty around this matter. So, even if I was of the view that NatWest ought to have done more, I don’t think this would’ve made a difference to Mrs J’s loss. As outlined in the investigation, due to the passage of time it is highly unlikely that any funds will be recoverable here. And, while NatWest are clearly aware of Mrs J’s vulnerabilities now, there is no evidence it was aware at the time, so there is nothing further I could’ve expected NatWest to have done. Overall, for the reasons outlined above I think these transactions were authorised. I also think NatWest made appropriate interventions, and I don’t think it is fair to say it should be held liable for some or all of Mrs J’s loss here. My final decision I am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs J to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Sienna Mahboobani Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --