National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-5812266

The complaint Mrs S and Mr T complain that National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company has declined to refund a cash withdrawal of £250 they say they did not receive. What happened Mrs S and Mr T have a joint account with Natwest. Mr T says he attempted to withdraw £20 from an ATM at a supermarket by entering his PIN , but the machine froze, did not eject any cash or his card. Mr T says a nearby third party informed him that the machine was not working and assisted Mr T to retrieve his card from the machine by pressing the cancel button repeatedly and advising Mr T to enter the PIN again. Once Mr T retrieved the card, he visited a NatWest branch and withdrew the £20. The NatWest staff informed him there had been a withdrawal of £250 earlier in the day which Mr T was unaware of. Mr T raised a fraud claim with NatWest on the same day. NatWest’s Fraud team investigated Mr T’s claim and declined it because Mr T still had the card, there was no evidence of card trapping and there had been no clear compromise. Unhappy with this decision, Mr T complained to NatWest. After review, NatWest agreed with the Fraud Team’s rejection of the claim. Mr T then referred his complaint to our service and one of our Investigators considered the complaint. In summary, our Investigator’s view was that the transaction was authorised because Mr T entered his PIN on the machine and thought it most likely that the third party stole the £250 from the machine after Mr T left. Our investigator therefore recommended NatWest didn’t need to take any further action. NatWest didn’t respond to our Investigator’s view. However, Mr T disagreed. He said, in summary, that at no point had he requested £250 from the machine and he only pressed the buttons denoting £10 and £20 when attempting to retrieve his card. He says he remained at the machine long enough to ensure it didn’t eject money after the card was retrieved. He requested a decision, and so the case has been passed to me. On reviewing Mr T’s complaint I reached a different conclusion to our Investigator. I explained to NatWest that without evidence showing the ATM had dispensed £250 I’d be upholding Mr T’s complaint and directing them to pay £250 plus 8% interest from the date of the withdrawal to the date of settlement. NatWest responded but didn’t provide any further evidence to show the cash fairly dispensed. I also shared my thoughts with Mr T and asked him for any comments. As Mr T didn’t respond I’ve proceeded to issue my decision. 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. In doing so, I’ve reached a different outcome to our Investigator’s view and I’ll explain why.

-- 1 of 3 --

Generally speaking, a bank is entitled to hold a consumer liable for authorised transactions, and the bank is liable for unauthorised transactions. Those rules are set out in the Payment Service Regulations 2017. When Mr T complained to NatWest about the unauthorised transaction on his account, he believed a third party had been involved in taking the money from his account because he didn’t see the cash withdraw and his card had been temporarily retained by the machine. He suggested some ways in which he thought a third party may have stolen or cloned his card temporarily. However, NatWest’s fraud team didn’t think this was likely, and suggested that this may have been a case of ‘cash not received’ rather than fraud or theft. However, the evidence suggests NatWest didn’t explore this further. The relevant regulations say that where a consumer says that a payment has not been correctly executed, it is for the business to prove that the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered into the business’s accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency. Therefore, it is for NatWest to show the cash withdrawal was completed correctly. I’ve firstly considered whether the transaction was authenticated, and I’m satisfied it was via Chip and PIN. I realise Mr T’s arguing that he didn’t select £250 to be dispensed from the ATM. However, Mr T accepts he did enter his card and the PIN. And whether he then accidentally selected for £250 or the stranger who assisted him did, I’m satisfied it’s fair to conclude the transaction was authorised. I say this as Mr T was attempting to withdraw cash at the time. Although I’m satisfied the disputed transaction was authorised, Mr T shared with NatWest that he receive the cash. And on Mr T’s initial contact with NatWest, they accepted this might be a case of the cash not dispensing. I’ve therefore moved on to consider this possibility. For me to conclude that the money did fairly dispense, I need to see evidence that there were no errors with the machine and the cash was dispensed and not retained in the ATM. However, NatWest haven’t been able to provide sufficient evidence to show either of these things. I’ve also considered Mr T’s testimony. I’m satisfied that he’s been consistent in his account. Mr T hasn’t raised any previous fraud claims, and I see no reason to think that what he’s shared isn’t accurate. Based on NatWest’s lack of evidence to show the cash dispensed and Mr T’s consistent explanation of events I can’t fairly conclude the money did dispense. It follows, I think Mr T was deprived of the funds. Putting things right I’ll be asking them to pay Mrs S and Mr T £250 plus 8% interest for the time period Mrs S and Mr T have been deprived of the funds. My final decision My final decision is I uphold this complaint. I direct National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company to: • pay Mrs S and Mr T £250 plus 8% interest from the date of the dispute to the date of the repayment. If Natwest considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mrs S and Mr T how much it’s taken off. It should also Mrs S and Mr T a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S and Mr T to

-- 2 of 3 --

accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Cheryl Dior Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --