National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6066954

The complaint Mr O complains that NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY won’t refund money he says he lost to a scam. In bringing this complaint, Mr O is represented by a firm I’ll refer to as ‘R’. What happened The background to this complaint is familiar to both parties and was set out in detail by our Investigator, so I’ll only refer to some key events here. Mr O says he fell victim to a crypto investment scam after being contacted by a ‘broker’ - who I’ll refer to as “X” - via a social media platform. Mr O says he had been in contact with X from August 2021 onwards. Between November and December 2022, Mr O made two payments totalling £33,500 from his NatWest account, which he says were lost to the scam. The first payment (£17,500) was made to an individual he believed to be X’s father. The second payment (£16,000) was made to a legitimate crypto exchange. Mr O says he then forwarded the purchased crypto to a wallet address provided by X. Mr O says he was later contacted by another individual on a social media platform who told him he had been scammed. He says X then stopped responding and ultimately blocked him on the platform. R complained to NatWest on Mr O’s behalf, arguing the bank failed to protect him from the scam and ought to have recognised the payments as suspicious and out of character. R asked NatWest to refund Mr O in full along with 8% simple interest. NatWest refused, saying it wasn’t responsible for Mr O’s loss and had processed his payments in line with his instructions. The complaint was then referred to the Financial Ombudsman. Our Investigator wasn’t persuaded that Mr O had provided sufficient evidence that he lost money to a scam and therefore didn’t recommend that NatWest should reimburse him. R disagreed, so the matter has been passed to me to decide. In summary, R argued that: • Mr O couldn’t provide further evidence of his communication with X because X had blocked him, and he shouldn’t be penalised for this. • There was sufficient evidence that Mr O had been scammed in the way he described, and his testimony should be accepted as accurate on the balance of probabilities (>51%). • It would be unfair to expect Mr O to have kept records of communication when he had no reason to foresee he would need them. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I have reached the same conclusion as our Investigator, and for largely the same reasons. I appreciate this will be disappointing for Mr O, and I don’t doubt the impact the alleged loss has had on him. But I can only require a bank to refund a consumer if the evidence persuades me it is responsible for the loss or was otherwise required to reimburse the loss. For the reasons I’ll set out below, I’m not persuaded NatWest is liable to reimburse Mr O. There’s no dispute that the payments were authorised by Mr O. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, consumers are generally liable for payments they authorise, and NatWest is expected to process such payments without undue delay. While banks do have obligations to help protect customers from fraud and scams - and may be expected to reimburse losses from Authorised Push Payment (APP) scams - this depends first on there being sufficient evidence that a scam and financial loss actually occurred. Mr O says he can’t provide a full record of his communication with X because X blocked him, which caused the messages to be lost. I’ve kept this in mind. However, although some screenshots and snippets of communication have been provided, I agree with our Investigator that there isn’t sufficient persuasive evidence to show Mr O has lost money to a scam. Mr O’s first payment was made to an individual I’ll refer to as “M”, believed to be X’s father. While Mr O has provided part of an online conversation where M’s name is mentioned, I’ve not been given a clear explanation for why he made the payment to M, what he expected in return, or any evidence showing M acted with fraudulent intent. The second payment was made to a crypto account in Mr O’s name, and crypto was then transferred to at least two wallet addresses. But there’s insufficient evidence showing those funds were sent to a wallet outside Mr O’s control. For example, I’ve seen no persuasive evidence that X supplied the wallet addresses, or that the funds sent to those addresses have been irretrievably lost. R argues there is no reason to question the validity of Mr O’s testimony, suggesting that the only alternative would be to accuse him of lying. I disagree. Not being persuaded that the evidence sufficiently proves the loss does not mean I believe Mr O is lying or engaging in first party fraud. It simply means the evidential threshold hasn’t been met. But even if I were to accept that Mr O lost money in the way he describes, I’m not satisfied there is enough evidence to show NatWest ought to have prevented Mr O’s loss or should otherwise be required to reimburse him. There is much I do not know about Mr O’s interactions with X, how he was persuaded to invest, and whether he would have heeded any warnings from NatWest. But I am aware that when applying for loans to fund the payments, Mr O stated the purpose for the funds was “Home Improvements”, which wasn’t accurate. He also described his payment to M as “Refurb”. Based on this, it seems Mr O was likely coached to, or was prepared to, provide inaccurate information about his payments, possibly with the intention of avoiding NatWest’s detection. In these circumstances, even if I could conclude Mr O had suffered a loss to a scam, I don’t consider it reasonable to conclude that NatWest would have prevented that loss or was otherwise responsible for it. In summary, I have carefully considered all the evidence, including Mr O’s testimony, but there isn’t enough to conclude, on balance, that Mr O suffered a loss for which NatWest should be held responsible. All I can be certain of is that Mr O made payments to a third

-- 2 of 3 --

party and to a legitimate crypto provider. I cannot be sure what happened to the funds after that, including whether they were sent to a wallet controlled by X. It would only be fair to hold NatWest responsible if I were satisfied the payments were indeed made to a scam, and based on the evidence provided, I’m not. I understand this will be disappointing for Mr O, but I don’t think NatWest can be held responsible for his claimed loss. 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 Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Lisa De Noronha Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --