National Westminster Bank Plc · DRN-6238161

The complaint This complaint is brought by Mr and Mrs L in their capacity as trustees of M, a retirement benefits scheme. Mr and Mrs L are the sole beneficiaries of the scheme. They complain that National Westminster Bank Plc delayed in closing M’s bank account and transferring funds to other accounts. What happened Mr and Mrs L say that, on 20 February 2025, they sent an instruction to NatWest to close M’s account and to transfer the funds held in it (around £690,000) to other accounts. The instruction was also signed by the pension administrator, in line with the account terms. The request to close the account was logged by the bank on 10 March 2025. Because of the sums involved, the bank says it needed to check the closure instructions with the trustees. The bank’s notes indicate that it tried to contact the trustees by phone on 17 March 2025. It was, however, unable to do so because it did not hold up to date contact details. It therefore wrote instead, asking Mr and Mrs L to get in touch to confirm the closure instructions. When Mr L did contact the bank, his details were passed to the account closures team to call him back. When that did not happen, the bank wrote to him again. Mr L’s contact details were updated on 25 March 2025 and the account was closed the following day. NatWest acknowledged that there had been delays in the account closure. But it said it had not received closure instructions until 10 March 2025 and that some delay had been the result of not having updated contact details. It initially offered Mr and Mrs L compensation of £250, but later increased its offer to £400. Mr and Mrs L did not accept the offer and referred the matter to this service. One of our investigators considered what had happened and issued a preliminary assessment, in which she said that she thought the bank’s offer was fair. Mr and Mrs L did not agree with the investigator’s assessment and asked that an ombudsman review the case. 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. Rather than detailing each and every contact with the bank, I have summarised the background above. I can assure both parties, however, that I have considered the details of the case before reaching this final decision. NatWest accepts that there were avoidable delays in closing the account. What I need to do, therefore, is to consider the extent and effect of those delays and what level of compensation is appropriate.

-- 1 of 3 --

The letter giving instructions to close the account was dated 20 February 2025. Whilst there is no proof, I think it’s reasonable to assume it was sent on or very soon after that date. NatWest says that the fact it was not logged until 10 March 2025 is evidence that it was only received on that date. The investigator said there was no evidence that it was received any sooner than that. I cannot be sure when the letter was delivered, but I note that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says that post is deemed to be delivered at the time when it would be delivered in the normal course of business. And section 1147(2) of the Companies Act 2006 says that information sent by post by a company is deemed to have been received 48 hours after it was posted. The first of these does not give a definite date of delivery, and the second does not apply directly, since M is not a company. But I do think it unlikely that it took more than a fortnight for the letter to arrive. On balance, therefore, I think it likely that the closure instruction was received by NatWest rather sooner than 10 March 2025. It was not unreasonable of the bank to verify the instructions it had received. It says that its practice is to do so for payments of more than £50,000. But that process was delayed because the bank did not hold current contact details, because Mr and Mrs L had not updated them. The account terms placed the onus on them to keep their details up to date. However, the bank appears to accept that Mr L should have received a call back on or around 20 March 2025. That call was not made until 26 March, however, causing a delay of a further five or six days. I have therefore considered what the effect of the delay was. Where a customer is deprived of funds (for example, where a payment is made late), this service will routinely make an award of interest, in much the same way as a court might do. In part, that recognises that the customer may have to pay to replace those funds temporarily. In this case, however, I am not persuaded that the delay in releasing the funds had any direct financial impact on M. As far as I am aware, the funds held in the account remained invested in the same way they had been invested before 20 February 2025. I have not seen anything to suggest, for example, that any return on them would have been better if they had been transferred sooner – as of course they should have been. I do accept however that Mr and Mrs L were put to some inconvenience by the bank’s actions and that the delays in dealing with M’s request would have caused them some stress and anxiety. They should receive some compensation for that. I agree however with the investigator’s assessment that the bank’s offer of £400 is reasonable in the circumstances, it is also in line with our published guidelines and with awards made in comparable cases. I will however make a formal award, so that M can enforce it, should that be necessary. My final decision For these reasons, my final decision is that, to resolve M’s complaint in full, National Westminster Bank Plc should pay it £400. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask M to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Mike Ingram

-- 2 of 3 --

Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --