Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6245389

The complaint Miss A complains Nationwide Building Society (“Nationwide”) hasn’t refunded funds she lost as the result of a scam. What happened Both parties are familiar with the circumstances of the complaint, so I’ll only summarise the key details here. Miss A said she scanned a QR code on a pay and display machine in a car park to pay for parking. Miss A explained she realised it was a scam when she checked her bank account and found £970 had been taken. Miss A contacted Nationwide, but it didn’t refund her money. Unhappy with Nationwide’s response, Miss A raised the matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint and didn’t uphold it. They didn’t think the payment warranted intervention from Nationwide. As an agreement could not be reached, 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. I’m sorry that Miss A has lost a meaningful sum of money and I don’t underestimate the impact this has had on her. And so, I’d like to reassure her that I’ve read and considered everything she’s said in support of her complaint. But I’ll focus my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. I know this will come as a disappointment to Miss A but having done so, I won’t be upholding her complaint for broadly the same reasons as our Investigator. I’ll explain why. There is limited evidence to support Miss A’s claim that she has been scammed. However, as it doesn’t make a material difference to the outcome I will proceed on the basis that Miss A has been scammed and lost funds as a result, as she described. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that banks and other payment service providers are expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. Miss A authorised the payment in question here – so even though she was tricked into doing so and didn’t intend for her money to end up in the hands of a scammer, she is presumed liable in the first instance.

-- 1 of 3 --

But as a matter of good industry practice, Nationwide should also have taken proactive steps to identify and help prevent transactions – particularly unusual or uncharacteristic transactions – that could involve fraud or be the result of a scam. However, there is a balance to be struck: as while banks and payment service providers should be alert to fraud and scams to act in their customers’ best interests, they can’t reasonably be involved in every transaction. I’ve also thought about the Contingent Reimbursement Model which Nationwide is a voluntary signatory of and the APP scam reimbursement rules. Neither cover card payments and so aren’t relevant here. I’ve thought about whether Nationwide acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Miss A when she made the payment, or whether it should have done more than it did. I don’t think the payment was of an unusually excessive value that it ought to have caused Nationwide to be concerned that Miss A was at risk of financial harm from fraud. Additionally, I’ve reviewed Miss A’s account statement and while she typically used the account for smaller payments I can see she made a one-off transaction for £1,955 the month before the disputed payment. So, it wasn’t uncommon for her to make larger one-off transactions as customers typically do from time to time. As, I don’t think the payment was suspicious in nature I therefore don’t think it was unreasonable for Nationwide to process the payment. Miss A said Nationwide contacted her when another payment was attempted on the same day, to the same destination, for £1,440.25. This payment was declined and Miss A believes if Nationwide contacted her for this payment it should have for the first payment too. At the time the £1,440.25 payment was attempted there were insufficient funds in the account, which wasn’t the case with the first payment, so I can see why Nationwide may have found the second payment suspicious and contacted Miss A. Miss A said when she reported the scam the payment was pending and believes Nationwide should have stopped it. Once a card payment has been authorised it remains pending until such time that the merchant requests the funds, during this time it can be cancelled by the merchant but not by Nationwide. After the debit card payment was made, the only potential avenue for recovery of the payment would have been through the chargeback scheme. The chargeback scheme is a voluntary scheme set up to resolve card payment disputes between merchants and cardholders. Nationwide is bound by the card scheme provider’s chargeback rules. Whilst there is no ‘right’ to a chargeback, I consider it to be good practice that a chargeback be raised if there is a reasonable chance of it succeeding. But a chargeback can only be made within the scheme rules, meaning there are only limited grounds and limited forms of evidence that will be accepted for a chargeback to be considered valid, and potentially succeed. Time limits also apply. Unfortunately, the chargeback rules don’t cover scams. I’m sorry to disappoint Miss A further, but I’ve thought carefully about everything that has happened, and with all the circumstances of this complaint in mind I don’t think Nationwide needs to refund Miss A’s money or pay any compensation. I realise this means she’s out of pocket and I’m really sorry she’s lost this money. However, for the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t think I can fairly or reasonably uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Nationwide Building Society.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss A to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Charlotte Mulvihill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --