Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6262928

The complaint Mr B and X complain that Nationwide Building Society won’t refund the full amount of money they lost to a scam. As Mr B was scammed, I’ll be referring to him mostly throughout this decision. What happened The background to this complaint is well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary and based on the submissions of both parties, I understand it to be as follows. Mr B complains that he sent several payments to what he thought was a legitimate investment, after meeting someone over a messaging service. When Mr B realised he had been scammed, he logged a complaint with Nationwide Nationwide looked into the complaint and upheld it in part. Mr B thought he should get a full refund, so he brought his complaint to our service. Our investigator looked into the complaint but didn’t uphold it. She found Nationwide had refunded more than what she thought was fair in the circumstances. Our investigator thought that Mr B ought to be held jointly responsible for not protecting himself enough, so any award she would have asked the bank to pay would only be 50% of the loss. Nationwide have paid Mr B over 50%, so she didn’t think it needed to pay any further compensation. As Mr B and X didn’t agree with the investigator’s view, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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 very aware that I’ve summarised this complaint briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think is the heart of the matter here. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive, or contradictory, I must make my decision on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I consider is more likely than not to have happened in the light of the available evidence and the wider surrounding circumstances. In line with the Payment Services Regulations (PSR) 2017, consumers are generally liable for payments they authorise. Nationwide is expected to process authorised payment

-- 1 of 3 --

instructions without undue delay. As a bank, it also has long-standing obligations to help protect customers from financial harm from fraud and scams. However, there are many payments made by customers each day and it’s not realistic or reasonable to expect a bank to stop and check every payment instruction. There’s a balance to be struck between identifying payments that could potentially be fraudulent, and minimising disruption to legitimate payments. Having considered the size of the individual payments, I’m satisfied that Nationwide ought to have been concerned Mr B and X could be at risk from financial harm when Mr B made the second payment of £5,000 on 31 January 2025 for broadly the same reasons as the investigator outlined in her findings. But to summarise, the value of the payment, the date the payment was made and the fact it was going to well establish cryptocurrency provider. So, I have gone on to consider what I deem to have been a proportionate intervention given the risk the payments presented. The FCA’s Consumer Duty, which was in force at the time these payments were made, requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for consumers including acting to avoid foreseeable harm. In practice this includes maintaining adequate systems to detect and prevent scams and to design, test, tailor and monitor the effectiveness of scam warning messages presented to customers. As such, firms, have developed warnings to recognise both the importance of identifying the specific scam risk in a payment journey and of ensuring that consumers interact with the warning. In light of the above, by January 2025, when these payments took place, Nationwide should have had systems in place to identify, as far as possible, the actual scam that might be taking place for example by asking a series of automated questions designed to narrow down the type of scam risk associated with the payment he was making – have provided a scam warning tailored to the likely scam Mr B was at risk from. I accept that any such system relies on the accuracy of any information provided by the customer and cannot reasonably cover off every circumstance. However, I haven’t seen anything to persuade me if it had done so, the scam wouldn’t have been uncovered .However, Nationwide agrees, it ought to discussed the payments with Mr B, but it feels it should have done so from 8 February 2025 and has therefore refunded 100% from that point. Here I agree with the investigator though that a deduction for contributary negligence would have applied had Nationwide not already offered a higher amount (therefore Nationwide has refunded more than I could have directed). I’ll explain why. I’ve thought about whether Mr B should bear any responsibility for his loss connected to the payments. In doing so, I’ve considered what the law says about contributory negligence, as well as what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this complaint - including taking into account Mr B’s own actions and responsibility for the losses he has suffered. Here I’m satisfied that the responsibility for the loss should be shared. I’ll explain why.. • Mr B paid a large amount of money from advice from someone he had never met. I understand Mr B thought he knew this person through a trusted friend, but he did no background checks on the person’s credentials. • A simple internet search on the company Mr B thought he was investigating with brings up several top searches with articles that indicate the company is operating a scam • The reviews Mr B said he checked are for a different company and one that provides payday advances. It’s clear from the branding and the reviews that they are not the

-- 2 of 3 --

same company. In summary, in isolation I can understand how one of these points on their own might not have caused Mr B any concern, but the combination of factors should have meant he proceeded with more caution than he did. So, given what I’ve said above, I think Mr B ought reasonably to have realised that there was a possibility that the investment wasn’t genuine before he made the payments. In doing so, he could have spoken with an IFA, his bank, or a friend. He also could have carried out more research into these types of investment opportunities online. If he had done so, I think the scam would have most likely been uncovered and his losses prevented. For this reason, I think Mr B didn’t do enough to protect himself from falling victim to a scam. Mr B thinks that Nationwide should refund the full amount of money he lost due to the scam. I understand that this will have been upsetting for him, but I’ve thought carefully about everything that has happened, and with all the circumstances of this complaint in mind I don’t think Nationwide needs to pay Mr B and X any more compensation. I realise this means Mr B is out of pocket and I’m sorry he’s lost this money. However, for the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t find I can reasonably uphold this complaint. 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 B and X to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Jade Rowe Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --