Nationwide · DRN-6141702

The complaint Mrs and Mr G are unhappy that Nationwide allowed their credit card to stop working while they were abroad and believe that the way Nationwide handled the situation caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience and disruption to their holiday. What happened Mrs and Mr G were overseas in August 2025. They tried to pay for a taxi using their Nationwide credit card on 10 August, but both contactless and chip-and-PIN payment attempts failed, even though they were entering the correct PIN. The following day, 11 August, Mrs and Mr G contacted Nationwide through online chat. They were told that their cards were active and that there were no issues. However, later that evening the card was again declined in a shop. Mrs and Mr G phoned Nationwide, and during this and later calls they say they were given different explanations for why the card wasn’t working, including references to incorrect PIN entries, suspected fraudulent activity and system blocks. Mrs and Mr G were also advised to try using an ATM to unblock the card while they were overseas, but this didn’t resolve the problem. Mrs and Mr G weren’t happy about what had happened, so they raised a complaint. Nationwide responded to Mrs and Mr G but didn’t uphold the primary aspect of their complaint. Nationwide’s records show that the card was restricted on 11 August because their systems registered that the PIN had been entered incorrectly too many times, triggering an offline PIN block. They say the card was not blocked for fraud, and they have no record of any attempted transactions on 10 August. However, Nationwide accepted that, when Mrs and Mr G called them, some of the information their advisers gave was incomplete or incorrect, including not explaining that the PIN could only be unblocked via a UK Visa ATM, and that a PIN reminder was not ordered when it should have been. Nationwide apologised to Mrs and Mr G for these service errors and paid £100 compensation to them. Mrs and Mr G weren’t satisfied with Nationwide’s response and referred their complaint to this service. They say the situation caused them significant anxiety, led to repeated attempts to resolve the issue, and meant they restricted their spending during their holiday because they were worried their debit card could also stop working. They also told us the experience contributed to a worsening of an existing health condition. One of our investigators looked at this complaint. But they felt that the apology and compensation provided by Nationwide already represented a fair outcome to what had happened. Mrs and Mr G disagreed, so the matter was escalated to an ombudsman 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

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The key disagreement here is about why the Nationwide credit card stopped working while Mrs and Mr G were abroad, and whether Nationwide failed in a way that caused the difficulties Mrs and Mr G experienced. I’ve considered what Mrs and Mr G have told this service and looked carefully at the records Nationwide supplied, including their internal system notes. I find these records persuasive, and they show that the card was restricted on 11 August 2025 because the system had registered too many incorrect PIN attempts. An “offline PIN block” in such circumstances is a standard security measure and, based on the information I have, I feel that it’s more likely than not that this was the reason the card could not be used from that point. Mrs and Mr G say that the problems began the previous day, on 10 August, when they tried to pay for a taxi. But Nationwide’s records don’t show any attempted authorisation requests reaching them on that date. This doesn’t mean that Mrs and Mr G didn’t attempt to use the card on that date. But I feel that it strongly suggests that any transactions Mrs and Mr G attempted on 10 August failed at a point in the transactional chain before it reached Nationwide. For instance, if the routing used by the merchant terminal was unable to connect to Nationwide, no record with Nationwide would be generated. Notably, this scenario is in keeping with both Mrs and Mr G’s confirmation that they attempted to use their card, and Nationwide’s confirmation that they have no record that Mrs and Mr G attempted to use their card. And in such circumstances, I can’t reasonably conclude that Nationwide did anything wrong on 10 August or that they were responsible for the initial payment failure, because I feel it’s most likely the case that the transactional chain failed at some point before it reached them. I’ve also thought about whether Nationwide failed to follow their fraud-prevention procedures. Mrs and Mr G believe Nationwide should have contacted them if the card had been flagged for possible fraud. But Nationwide’s evidence shows that no fraud block had been applied to the card at any point during the relevant period. As such, there was no reason or requirement for Nationwide to contact Mrs and Mr G in this manner, and there’s no indication that fraud processes played any part in why the card stopped working. Nationwide have accepted that when Mrs and Mr G contacted them on 11 August, they were given some information that was incorrect. They were not told that the PIN could only be unblocked by using a UK Visa ATM, and a PIN reminder was not ordered when it should have been. I agree that these were service failings, and I recognise that they added to the confusion and inconvenience for Mrs and Mr G at what was already a stressful time. Accordingly, I’ve considered the impact of those service failings, including whether those failings caused the situation Mrs and Mr G faced abroad or significantly worsened the impact of it. Notably, however, even if the advice from Nationwide had been entirely correct at the outset, the offline PIN block still could not have been resolved by Mrs and Mr G while they were overseas. So, while the incorrect information given to Mrs and Mr G meant additional effort was wasted by them, it didn’t change the overall position they were in or prevent the card from being restored to working order while they were abroad. I acknowledge Mrs and Mr G’s explanation that the situation in question worsened an existing health condition. But I don’t feel it would be fair to consider Nationwide responsible for that as Mrs and Mr G suggest. This is because, ultimately, I don’t feel that Nationwide have acted unfairly or unreasonably in how they’ve administered Mrs and Mr G’s credit card account, including restricting the account for the reasons that they did. Nationwide has already apologised for the service issues and paid £100 compensation to

-- 2 of 3 --

Mrs and Mr G. And while I accept that the difficulties Mrs and Mr G experienced were frustrating and that the situation caused them distress during their holiday, they did have access to alternative funds through their debit card, and Nationwide have reimbursed them for the non-sterling transaction fees and phone charges they incurred while using that account. In the context of the failings that Nationwide were responsible for, including that I don’t consider Nationwide have acted unfairly or unreasonably regarding for the card restriction itself, I consider the apology, reimbursement of fees and phone charges, and payment of £100 compensation to be a fair and reasonable outcome to this complaint. And I can confirm that these actions are commensurate with what I might have instructed Nationwide to undertake, had they not already done so. All of which means that I don’t feel that Nationwide should fairly be instructed to take any further or alternative action here, which in turn means that I won’t be upholding this complaint. I realise this may not be the outcome Mrs and Mr G were wanting, but I hope they will understand, given what I’ve explained and the impartial role of this service, why I’ve made the final decision that I have. 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 Mrs G and Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Paul Cooper Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --