NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY · DRN-6204243

The complaint Mr H complains that NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY has declined to reimburse payments he made under duress. What happened The facts are well-known to both parties and so I’ll summarise them briefly. Mr H had a guest at this house who threatened and assaulted him. They then demanded that he make transfers which Mr H says he did under coercion, and in fear for his safety. In total he sent £500. NatWest declined to reimburse the payments on the grounds that they were authorised and that Mr H’s loss was a criminal matter outside of the scope of its responsibilities. When Mr H referred his complaint to our service, the investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They explained that as the payments were authorised, Mr H was liable for them. They didn’t think Mr H’s circumstances fell within the scope of the PSR’s mandatory reimbursement rules or that NatWest should have done more to intervene in the payments. Mr H didn’t agree, he didn’t think it was fair for him to be held liable on technicalities given the circumstances of the payments and his vulnerability at the time. Mr H also said the payments were unusual due to the pattern of multiple payments to a new payee in a relatively short space of time. The investigator explained why they didn’t think they could reasonably require NatWest to reimburse the payments. As an agreement couldn’t be reached, the matter has been passed to me for consideration by an ombudsman. 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 genuinely sorry for what Mr H has been through and the impact this has had on him. Having considered the matter carefully, I’m not upholding this complaint for similar reasons to the investigator. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs) – the starting point is that Mr H is liable for authorised payments and NatWest is liable for unauthorised payments. Mr H does appear to accept the payments were authorised under the relevant law – as he made them. While Mr H has explained he didn’t make the payments voluntarily, consent under the PSRs 2017 is given by the payer when they complete the agreed “form and procedure” to make a payment, and here there’s no dispute Mr H completed the steps to make the payments. There is no provision requiring Mr H to have wanted to make the payments or an exception for coercion.

-- 1 of 3 --

I can understand why this doesn’t feel fair to Mr H. Taking everything Mr H has described happening at face value, he has been the victim of a crime. The perpetrator is the one responsible for this, and any criminal recourse is a separate matter for the police. Our service is only considering the dispute between Mr H and NatWest – and here NatWest followed Mr H’s instructions in line with the terms of his account. In broad terms, a payment service provider such as NatWest is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the PSRs and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. But, taking into account longstanding regulatory expectations and requirements, and what I consider to be good industry practice, NatWest ought to have been on the look-out for the possibility of fraud and made additional checks before processing payments in some circumstances. I have reviewed Mr H’s account statements and the disputed payments. Having considered when the disputed payments were made, their value and who they were made to, I’m not persuaded NatWest ought to have found them suspicious or out of character for the account, such that it ought to have done more to intervene with Mr H before processing them. Each was for a relatively low amount, so they wouldn’t have appeared high risk and there was a confirmation of payee match. Mr H thinks NatWest should have done more to interrupt or pause the payments giving him time to de-escalate the situation or seek help. I understand Mr H’s point that in retrospect we can see multiple payments in a relatively short period of time, but each payment and the total sent was still relatively low and so I wouldn’t have expected NatWest to intervene. What Mr H is suggesting in practice would have required NatWest to identify that he faced a heightened risk of financial harm from fraud to the level that a human intervention was appropriate – and for the reasons I’ve provided I don’t think that would have been proportionate based on the information NatWest had at the time. I can’t see how any in-app scam warnings would have been effective given the reason he was making the payments. NatWest needs to strike a balance between its obligations to follow their customer’s payment instructions with their responsibilities to prevent foreseeable harm. At the time, NatWest didn’t know the situation Mr H was in or that he was vulnerable, and I don’t think the activity had formed a suspicious pattern to the extent that NatWest has done something wrong by not doing more to intervene. Mr H has referenced the Payment Systems Regulator’s mandatory reimbursement rules which are for authorised push payment (APP) scams. Mr H does appear to now accept that the circumstances in which he made the payments aren’t covered by these rules – mainly because he wasn’t deceived into making the payments, rather he was aware of the purpose of the payments and made them because he wanted the perpetrator to leave. While his actions are understandable, this reimbursement scheme was set up to cover specific scenarios which don’t include what happened to Mr H. I do understand why this outcome doesn’t feel fair to Mr H, but as I’ve explained, our role is to consider the dispute between Mr H and NatWest, rather than whether what happened to Mr H is fair. Our service attempted to mediate a settlement given the circumstances, but NatWest didn’t think it was appropriate to make an offer on a goodwill basis. While I do appreciate Mr H is the victim here, for these reasons explained, I don’t think NatWest is required to reimburse the payments.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Stephanie Mitchell Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --