Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6205786

The complaint Mr D complains that Nationwide Building Society has declined to refund disputed transactions that were made from his account or pursue a chargeback for ‘goods not received.’. What happened On 6 June 2025, several disputed transactions totalling £7,237.19 debited Mr D’s account. Mr D says he consented to transactions, but not the ones that debited his account. He says he was not aware of the specifics of the transactions, including the values. Mr D contacted Nationwide as he believed his card had been compromised and asked it to refund the disputed transactions. But the society didn’t believe it was liable for his loss. Dissatisfied with this, and the customer service he’d received from Nationwide, Mr D raised a complaint. But the society didn’t resolve matters for Mr D and he referred his complaint to our service. One of our investigators considered Mr D’s complaint but didn’t uphold it. From the evidence, he was satisfied that Mr D authorised the disputed transactions, and therefore didn’t believe Nationwide was responsible for refunding them. Mr D didn’t agree with our investigator’s findings. As well as other things, he said he couldn’t have possibly authorised a transaction without knowing what he was purchasing, the merchant or the sum in question. He highlighted that payment devices and authorisations can be intercepted and mimicked, and said how this type of fraud is commonplace in London and have been reported in the media. He also said Nationwide’s handling of his fraud report had caused him significant inconvenience and distress. He said he pleaded with Nationwide for assistance but received none. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was passed to me, and I issued a provisional decision on 18 February 2026. I said: ‘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 realise this will come as a huge disappointment to Mr D, but I don’t require Nationwide to refund the disputed £7,237.19 to him. I’ve explained why. The relevant regulations here are the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs). In general terms, the society is liable if the customer didn’t authorise the payments, and the customer is liable if they did authorise them. So, the issue for me to determine is whether Mr D carried out the disputed transaction himself or authorised someone else to make them on his behalf. Having reviewed Nationwide’s system notes from when it spoke with Mr D about the disputed transactions. It appears Mr D confirmed them as his own, but he told Nationwide that there’s a club in London that carry out a well-known scheme by way of overcharging

-- 1 of 4 --

people. Nationwide then noted ‘Customer confirmed on the call that he carried out the transfers and made the transactions.’ A further conversation notes that Mr D said that whilst he was in a bar, he thought he was paying for drinks but instead he was approving transactions to another merchant miles away from where he was at the time. In addition to the above, Mr D’s account activity shows money was being moved from his savings account to his current account using mobile banking to fund the disputed transactions. For example, £500 was transferred at 3.28am for a transaction of £600 to be made 5 minutes after. And at 5.41am, £850 was transferred from his savings to his current account followed by a transaction for £981.11 to be made 2 minutes later. Without these transfers, the disputed transactions wouldn’t have been possible due to insufficient funds. And in addition to this, at 4.07am, Nationwide suspended Mr D’s account in view of unusual activity, and this suspension was removed at 4.10am via Mr D’s mobile banking, accessed using his Nationwide pass number to enable a transaction to go ahead. So whilst I’ve considered what Mr D has said about his lack of knowledge of the values of the transactions he was approving (because he didn’t check the amounts displayed on the terminal or otherwise, this evidence of the transfers Mr D made, and the mobile banking activity contradicts that significantly. I’ve considered Mr D’s arguments about consent, and his belief that is not possible to consent to something if you don’t know what it is. But it’s important to note that consent can mean different things in different contexts, and the tests vary depending on the applicable law. For example, the requirements around consent in a healthcare setting are different to a data protection setting. Mr D has said he consented to payments, but it was to a very different series of transactions to the ones that were implemented. Under the PSRs giving consent to a payment is a formal concept. Consent is given when an agreed procedure is completed by the payer or someone acting on their behalf (in this case taking the necessary steps to make a payment using Mr D’s card and PIN). So, whilst I appreciate Mr D says he didn’t know what he was consenting to, I think it’s reasonable for Nationwide to consider the payments as authorised by him. And under the relevant regulations, this means it’s entitled to hold him responsible for them. Could Nationwide raised a chargeback to recover the disputed amounts? Mr D is of the belief that this matter could’ve been resolved by raising chargebacks for the disputed transactions. He’s also referenced section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, but that wouldn’t apply here as the disputed transactions weren’t made using credit. Chargeback is a way a payment service provider can seek to recover disputed funds via the relevant card scheme. But a chargeback is not an automatic right. Whilst this service considers it to be good practice for a payment service provider to raise a chargeback in an attempt to recover disputed funds, there must be a reasonable chance of success. Here, in the circumstances, including the moving of funds into the account by Mr D, and that the disputed transactions were all verified by chip and PIN, I don’t consider it unreasonable that Nationwide didn’t pursue a chargeback. Customer service Mr D says he’s unhappy with Nationwide’s failure to respond to the matter appropriately or provide him with any records that would help him seek redress. After speaking with the fraud department on 6 July 2025, I see Nationwide only considered a complaint about the lack of a response to correspondence Mr D has sent in relation to his

-- 2 of 4 --

fraud claim and not the fraud claim itself. I’ve seen copies of emails between Mr D and Nationwide, and it’s clear Mr D had expressed dissatisfaction with the fraud claim itself, and it doesn’t appear he was receiving any response. For example, between 13 July and 11 August 2025, Mr D emailed the society seven times, and says he also visited a branch during this time too. But he wasn’t getting a reply. And when the society did respond, it told him he’d need to raise a complaint, when I consider he’d already clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the overall process for a complaint to be raised. I appreciate Nationwide wasn’t giving Mr D the answers he wanted (the money returned to him), but I think it could’ve been more proactive in the way it responded to Mr D. At an already difficult time for him, I feel this would’ve added to his trouble and upset. So I feel it’s reasonable for Nationwide to pay him £150 for these customer service failings. Overall, whilst I consider Mr D authorised the disputed transactions, and that his mobile banking activity along with the transfers from his savings account show he was likely aware of the amounts he was authorising, I’m willing to accept he was targeted in some way by members of the bar staff. However, in view of the relevant regulations and the overall circumstances involved here, I find its fair for Nationwide to hold Mr D liable for the £7,237.19. So I don’t require it to do anything further in that regard. But, I do find its customer service fell below the standards I would expect. So because of this, Nationwide should pay Mr D £150 to reflect the trouble and upset this would’ve caused to him.’ Responses to my provisional decision Nationwide said my provisional decision seemed fair and didn’t have any further comments to add. Mr D responded in detail with comments from both him and ones written for him by a third party. As well as other things, these included: • After all of his efforts and communications, there is no adequate understanding of his complaint. • The matter could have been resolved with a simple chargeback. • It is perfectly normal for a person who is purchasing (what they believe to be a beverage and being embarrassed by their transaction being declined) to move funds to ensure they are available to meet the charge. It does not mean that Mr D was aware that he was being charged by a totally different company, hundreds of kilometres away. • It is not possible to consent to something when what you are consenting to has been mis-represented. This point was not properly considered. • The fundamental issue is that Mr D did not receive what he paid for. He was charged and paid for something very different to drinks. • My comments regarding chargebacks were fundamentally flawed. I assumed that a chargeback is not likely to be successful where chip and PIN is used. Mr D acknowledges that where a PIN was used, it is very difficult to claim "unauthorized transaction" fraud. However, a chargeback may be requested 'when goods are not as described, or not received', regardless of the payment method. 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.

-- 3 of 4 --

I’ve thought carefully about what Mr D has said in response to my provisional decision. But nothing that he has said has persuades me to reach a different conclusion to that in my provisional decision. I’ve reviewed the evidence and I appreciate Mr D says the transactions he made were for drinks, but as mentioned before, his actions via his mobile banking suggest he was aware of the values of the transactions, and – given those values - he may well have been paying for other goods or services too. And as I’m persuaded that the payments were authorised using chip and PIN, it's unlikely a chargeback would have succeeded. And in any event Mr D doesn't have evidence of what he purchased, or the price he expected to pay. This is evidence that would be expected as part of the chargeback process for ‘goods not received.’ In my judgement, the business name or its location is unlikely to have any bearing on the outcome of a chargeback in the circumstances of Mr D’s complaint. As such, I don't agree that this situation could’ve been resolved by using the chargeback process, and I don’t see it's unreasonable that Nationwide didn’t pursue one. In response to Mr D’s comments that it is not possible to consent to something when what you are consenting to has been mis- represented, the fact remains that he consented to transactions being made from his account, by following the form and procedure agreed between him and Nationwide. A such, he authorised the transactions and Nationwide is entitled to hold him liable for them under the PSR’s. In summary, aside from the customer service issues I highlighted in my provisional decision, I don’t find that Nationwide has done anything wrong with the way it dealt with Mr D’s disputed transactions claim. I find the £150 is fair compensation for the service it provided to Mr D, and I don’t require it to do anything more. Putting things right For the reasons I’ve explained above, Nationwide Building Society must pay Mr D £150 compensation. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Lorna Wall Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --