Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6240302

The complaint Mr B complains that Nationwide Building Society won’t refund him after he made payments towards an investment scam. Mr B is professionally represented in bringing his complaint to our service, but for ease of reading, I’ll refer to all submissions as being made by Mr B directly. What happened The background to this complaint has been set out in detail by our Investigator so I don’t intend to repeat everything here. But briefly, both parties accept that in 2020, Mr B came across an investment with a firm I’ll refer to as ‘C’. Mr B attended meetings online to find out more about the opportunity and, encouraged by what he saw, he began investing. Unfortunately, unknown to Mr B at the time, C was in fact operating a scam. When the scam came to light, Mr B contacted his bank, Nationwide, to raise a claim and also made a complaint to our service. In Mr B’s initial referral to our service, he complained that his losses totalled over £140,000, which was made up of payment transfers and card payments to several cryptocurrency platforms. The Investigator who reviewed his complaint questioned this, as Mr B appeared to receive a number of credits from individuals, before sending these funds on. The Investigator provided an initial answer on Mr B’s complaint, determining that Mr B had provided insufficient evidence that his funds had ultimately been lost to a scam, rather than sent to his own cryptocurrency wallet. Mr B responded with further evidence supporting a loss caused by C. A second Investigator therefore asked Mr B to provide a breakdown for the payments he made from his Nationwide account to cryptocurrency platforms, and how these are reflected in the evidence of funds sent to his own account with C. The Investigator also asked for clarification on what payments were from other investors and what Mr B understood he was to gain from introducing others to C. Mr B provided a breakdown of payments, setting out which were his own investments (around £66,000 of what was initially stated) and which belonged to other investors. The Investigator asked him to further clarify what profits, credits or commissions Mr B earned from C. She also asked for clarification of Mr B’s stated payment breakdown, as some losses referenced as being his own appeared to relate to other victims. The Investigator also highlighted that for losses Mr B has stated he incurred, his breakdown didn’t include what the source of funds was. Mr B provided a further breakdown of payments, which now listed his own losses at around £33,000. Mr B also questioned why our Service wouldn’t consider losses from other victims who made payments through him.

-- 1 of 3 --

Our Investigator issued their view, setting out that despite several requests, Mr B had failed to clearly demonstrate the source of funds for the majority of payments he claims to have been his own losses, some of which appear to be credited from other individuals, and for those where the source is known, these total less than the credits Mr B received from the scam, meaning there has been no loss demonstrated. The Investigator also explained that, based on the number of victims who paid C via Mr B, each of whom may have received their own credits or refunds, it wouldn’t be practical to look at their losses as part of Mr B’s complaint. Mr B disagreed with the Investigator’s view. He said that given the time that has passed since the scam, as well as his own medical conditions which have affected his memory, it is not reasonable for him to recall every individual credit to his account. He did advise that one credit received was from the sale of a car, but due to the passing of time since was unable to demonstrate this. He considered that the Investigator had placed too much emphasis on strict proof, rather than assessing the evidence on the balance of probabilities. As Mr B disagreed with the Investigator’s view, the complaint has been referred to me 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 reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’m aware that I’ve summarised this complaint and the responses 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 – which is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a scam has taken place. 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 an alternative to the courts. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a firm is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. However, where the customer made the payment as a consequence of the actions of a fraudster, it may sometimes be fair and reasonable for the bank to reimburse the customer even though they authorised the payment. However, this would rely on (amongst other things) the customer being able to reasonably evidence the scam they fell victim to, as well as their losses to that scam, in order for their bank (or our Service) to consider that customer’s losses. In this case, while I think Mr B has demonstrated that he has fallen victim to a scam by C, in order to consider whether Nationwide is liable to reimburse him, I’d need to be able to establish specifically what losses are his and what losses can be attributed to others. This includes having a clear understanding of how the payments he made to the scam were sourced, what credits he received from the scam, either in the form of returns or commission payments and what losses other victims suffered who sent funds via Mr B. Our Investigator has requested on several occasions that Mr B more clearly demonstrates how his payments to the scam were funded. She provided specific reference to the names of payments that credited the account before the scam payments were made and asked for clarification on these credits. Only one payment has been further explained as being a car

-- 2 of 3 --

sale (although no further evidence of this was provided). All further credits that funded payments were unaccounted for. Additionally, despite Mr B’s losses starting at over £140,000 and now being stated as around £33,000 there are still several payments he claims to be his own losses that I disagree are his losses, based on the credits to his accounts from other individuals shortly before they were made. I appreciate Mr B has explained he has memory loss as a result of medical conditions since the scam, and our Service is, as he’s pointed out, able to make deductions based on the balance of probabilities. But in this case, the unaccounted for credits make up almost the entirety of Mr B’s claim – and without something further to substantiate these, I can’t agree it’s fair to hold Nationwide liable for any losses claimed. Without a greater understanding of what the credits were that were made into Mr B’s account shortly before payments to the scam were made, I can’t rule out if these funds were also provided by victims of the scam, whether they were credits from introducing others to C, or something else entirely. While our Service can consider the losses of other victims’ funds via Mr B’s account, I agree with the Investigator that in this case, it wouldn’t be practical for us to do so. I say this because I’m currently unable to even determine what Mr B’s own involvement in the scam was, or what his losses or credits from it were. I can see that the credits Mr B received from others didn’t always clearly match the payments made out from Mr B’s account to cryptocurrency platforms, and that Mr B made multiple payments back to victims that haven’t been explained and can’t be clearly understood based on the evidence provided. Therefore, I don’t think any overall losses to this scam have been substantiated clearly enough to fairly investigate Mr B’s complaint. As set out by the Investigator, for the few payments Mr B made where funds originated from a longer standing account balance, the value of these payments is outweighed by credits received into the account that have been confirmed as withdrawals from C. Without clearer evidence demonstrating that Mr B has suffered a loss as the result of this scam, and a clear and accurate depiction of what this loss is, I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to find Nationwide liable for any losses suffered. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr B’s complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Kirsty Upton Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --