National Westminster Bank PLC · DRN-6194982

The complaint Mr H complains that National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) declined a credit card transaction and its subsequent response was unacceptable. What happened Mr H says he attempted to use his credit card, and PIN, to part-pay for a holiday on 18 September 2025. He says that the transaction was declined and he received no contact from NatWest, so he made contact through an online messaging service. Mr H reports that he was advised someone would get in touch, but it could take up to four hours. He explains that, when he received a response, after business hours, he was given a number to call, but the agent couldn’t tell him why the transaction had failed and said the team he needed only worked office hours. Mr H says he called the following day but was informed he needed to wait to hear from the specialist team. Later that day he says that he received a voicemail message with a number to call, and the issue was resolved in time for him to use his card for his upcoming holiday expenses. Mr H adds that there were no financial consequences, but he had the embarrassment of having the transaction refused and a stressful 24 hours afterwards. NatWest says it is entitled to restrict usage on a customer’s credit card if it believes their accounts are at risk as outlined in its terms and conditions. It says that, due to the type of restriction in Mr H’s case, no contact was made in order to prompt further contact from him. NatWest explains that its agents can only contact the relevant department via email and are limited in the information they can provide. It says it aims to resolve the blocks within 48 hours and, in Mr H’s case, the restriction was removed the next day. However, it apologised for not setting Mr H’s expectations more clearly during his web chat and credited his account with £65. Following referral to this service, NatWest explained that “An out of character high value payment can trigger our fraud systems and block that payment” and it increased its compensation offer to £150. Mr H decided not to accept the increased offer as he said wanted confirmation that NatWest’s processes were not correctly followed and assurance that this type of issue will be dealt with differently in the future. In particular, Mr H felt strongly that NatWest should have initiated contact, provided a direct contact number and enabled a 24/7 service. He added that this payment was one of a series of similarly “high value” payments from December 2024 onwards and now his October payment has also been declined. Mr H said that, again, there was no proactive contact from NatWest, even after his card had been unblocked without his knowledge, and that the call wait times are unacceptable.

-- 1 of 3 --

Our investigator considered NatWest’s revised offer was fair. He explained that NatWest has processes in place to help prevent fraudulent activity and that it is not the role of this service to ask NatWest to change those processes. Mr H responded to say, in summary, that: • The compensation offer is derisory given the time he’s spent on the phone and delays in reinstating his card; • NatWest needs to revise its processes so that it initiates contact in all cases of a blocked transaction, and also when a card is unblocked; • The system seems to be faulty in terms of identifying potentially fraudulent transactions, especially when similar transactions have already been verified; • More staff are required to deal with the calls – he has regularly had to wait over 30 minutes for his call to be answered; • Procedures need to be updated as the specialist team only works Monday to Friday, and it has 48 working hours to resolve the issues. 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. It is worth outlining here that the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service is to look at the individual merits of a complaint and consider the impact on a particular customer. We consider whether a business has made a mistake and whether it has acted fairly in responding to the customer’s complaint. In this case, I am satisfied that NatWest has not made a mistake in blocking Mr H’s card even though the transactions were not fraudulent. I say that because NatWest says that unusual high value payments can trigger its fraud systems and its terms and conditions say: “We may refuse a transaction if: • we believe there has been fraud on your account or it is at risk of someone using it to make a fraudulent or unauthorised transaction; • we reasonably believe that you (or an additional cardholder) did not authorise the instruction;” I acknowledge Mr H said NatWest’s systems are identifying the wrong transactions, but that is not the main thrust of his complaint here. His frustrations were driven by NatWest’s processes from the moment his card was blocked until the moment he found out it was unblocked. In summary, this encompasses a lack of proactive communication, impractical working hours, and unsatisfactory communication channels. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service is an informal dispute resolution service for consumers. It is not the regulator of the financial services industry – that is the Financial Conduct Authority. As a result, we cannot instruct a bank to update its fraud algorithms, change its processes, hire more staff or amend their working hours. What we can do is

-- 2 of 3 --

consider the effect these things have had on a particular customer and decide whether some form of redress is appropriate. In Mr H’s case, I acknowledge that he hasn’t suffered a financial detriment as a result of NatWest’s actions, but I am satisfied that he was inconvenienced and spent some time attempting to resolve the issues. When considering our usual awards in this area, this service would recommend between £100 and £300 where there have been repeated small errors, or a larger single mistake, requiring a reasonable amount of effort to sort out. These typically result in an impact that lasts a few days, or even weeks, and cause either some distress, inconvenience, disappointment or loss of expectation. I have listened to the calls Mr H made to NatWest, and I can empathise with the effect this had on him, especially as he was unsure whether his card would work on an upcoming holiday. NatWest did, however, unblock his card within 24 hours each time, even though it didn’t communicate this the second time. Putting things right Overall, I consider that the £150 NatWest has now offered, in total, is a fair and reasonable resolution to this complaint. My final decision My decision is that I uphold this complaint. National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) should pay Mr H an additional £85 for the reasons outlined above, as it has offered to do. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Amanda Williams Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --