National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6151453

The complaint Mr B complains National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (“NatWest”) hasn’t refunded funds he 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. Mr B said he received a call from a scammer who told him there was an account in his name which held cryptocurrency and to be able to withdraw the funds he needed to pay £700 into the account. Mr B said after making the payment the scammer requested further deposits for fees and taxes. When he received no funds back Mr B realised he’d been scammed and contacted NatWest, but it didn’t refund him. Unhappy with NatWest’s response, Mr B raised the matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint and didn’t uphold it. They felt that the payments weren’t suspicious in nature such that NatWest ought to have intervened. 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 Mr B has been the victim of a scam. I realise he’s lost a significant sum of money and I don’t underestimate the impact this has had on him. And so, I’d like to reassure Mr B that I’ve read and considered everything he’s said in support of his 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 Mr B but having done so, I won’t be upholding his complaint. I’ll explain why. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that banks and other payment service providers are expected to process transactions that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. Mr B authorised the transactions in question here – so even though he was tricked into doing so and didn’t intend for his money to end up in the hands of a scammer, he is presumed liable in the first instance. But as a matter of good industry practice, NatWest should also have taken proactive steps to identify and help prevent transactions – particularly unusual or uncharacteristic transactions

-- 1 of 3 --

– that could involve fraud or be the result of a scam. However, there is a balance to be struck: as while banks 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 NatWest is a voluntary signatory of and the APP scam reimbursement rules. Neither cover payments made to an account in the customer’s name and so aren’t relevant here. I’ve thought about whether NatWest acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Mr B, or whether it should have done more than it did. Mr B made several payments from his NatWest account to a legitimate cryptocurrency provider and an account he held with a firm I’ll call R. He also attempted to make other payments to the cryptocurrency provider which were declined due to the daily limits applied to the account. I don’t think I need to make a finding on whether NatWest ought to have intervened or not as I’m not persuaded that any intervention from NatWest would have uncovered the scam. I’ll explain why. I should explain that for me to find it fair and reasonable that NatWest should refund Mr B requires more than a finding that it ought to have intervened further than it did. I would need to find not only that NatWest failed to proportionately intervene where it ought reasonably to have done so – but crucially I’d need to find that but for this failure the subsequent loss would’ve been avoided. That latter element concerns causation. A proportionate intervention will not always result in the prevention of a payment. And if I find it more likely than not that such a proportionate intervention by NatWest wouldn’t have revealed the payments were part of a fraud or scam, then I couldn’t fairly hold NatWest liable for not having prevented them from being made. Having reviewed the communications between Mr B and the scammer I can see when Mr B encountered issues using NatWest, he opened an account with R at the scammer’s instruction to facilitate the scam. Additionally, when R intervened Mr B wasn’t entirely forthcoming, for example when asked he didn’t disclose that there was third party involvement or that he was being guided and pressured. The communications also show when R intervened Mr B was heavily coached. For example, during a direct intervention with Mr B via R’s in-app chat Mr B shared the questions R asked him with the scammer who told him how to respond which he did. Coaching of this nature is difficult for a firm to counter, and I believe Mr B seeking, and following, the scammer’s guidance shows the degree with which he was under the scammer’s spell. I can’t be sure what would have happened if NatWest had intervened, so I have to make my decision on the balance of probabilities. And I think, on balance, if NatWest had intervened Mr B would likely have behaved in a similar way as he did when R intervened. That’s to say I believe he would have more likely than not have followed the scammer’s guidance and mis- led NatWest and sought how to answer it’s questions. I’m therefore not satisfied that any intervention from NatWest would have uncovered the scam or prevented Mr B’s losses. It therefore wouldn’t be fair or reasonable for me to hold NatWest liable for them. I’m sorry to disappoint Mr B 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 NatWest needs to refund Mr B’s money or pay any compensation. I realise this means he’s out of pocket and I’m really sorry Mr B’s lost this money. However, for the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t think I can fairly or reasonably uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Charlotte Mulvihill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --