National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6174846

The complaint A limited company, which I’ll refer to as F, complains that National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company unfairly closed all its accounts without adequate warning. What happened F took out a small business loan in 2018 and a bounce back loan in 2020. F also had a NatWest business chargecard. F began to have difficulties maintaining its loan repayments in 2023. In March 2024, the balance that had built up on F’s chargecard was debited to F’s current account, resulting in an unauthorised overdraft. In April 2024, the bank issued formal demand letters. F complained that it hadn’t received the letters, but the bank didn’t uphold the complaint and told F its accounts would be transferred to their Recoveries department. F asked for some time to consult with third party debt advisors and the bank agreed to put things on hold. A month later, NatWest agreed to give F more time. Six weeks after the second period on hold began, having had no further contact from F, the bank formally demanded repayment of the overdraft and both loans. Once these letters had expired, F’s current account was closed and all its borrowing was transferred to Recoveries. F made a second complaint. NatWest accepted that they had made an error on a telephone call, when they said they didn’t have F’s phone number. They offered £100 in recognition of this mistake, but did not uphold the substantive part of the complaint. F asked the Financial Ombudsman to look into the matter. One of our investigators did so but didn’t think the bank had acted unfairly. F asked for an ombudsman’s decision, saying it had been in active contact with the bank and had been making small payments towards the debt. It therefore thought the bank’s actions had been unfair and disproportionate. 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. Having done so, I’m sorry to disappoint F’s director, but I have reached the same conclusion as our investigator, for essentially the same reasons. I’ll explain why below. I don’t think that F’s director disputes that F had a responsibility to ensure contractually required monthly payments for its loans were made. These obligations to make monthly repayments were clearly set out in the agreements at the outset and I’m satisfied that F was aware of them – and was aware that it was in arrears - from the various telephone calls that took place. F’s director’s argument is rather that she was engaging with the bank and showing good

-- 1 of 3 --

faith. So the bank should have given F more time to come up with a repayment plan. I understand why she feels this, but I don’t think NatWest have acted unfairly here. F had shown clear evidence of financial difficulties for several years before the transfer to Recoveries. I think it was reasonable for the bank to conclude that, if F was able to come up with a repayment plan, it would have done so before January 2025. The first formal demand letters were issued in April 2024, but the bank did not make the transfer to Recoveries until almost nine months later. This was because matters were first put on hold while F’s first complaint was investigated and then two more hold periods were agreed. I think this showed a sufficient degree of forbearance. When NatWest agreed the second hold period, it wrote to F saying “We will continue to pursue any shortfall if we do not receive this information within the next 30 days”. They then waited more than 30 days before issuing formal demands, so I think this was fair. I can see that both parties to this complaint had been aware for some time that there was a problem with F’s address. In January 2024, the bank had tried to call F’s director about this address and left a message. And in September 2024, in their email response to F’s first complaint, NatWest said: “It’s unclear why you didn’t hear from us as we used the contact addresses you had provided us. If these have changed, then it’s up to you to let us know so we can update our records…”. I think this made it clear that F’s director needed to take action to change the address the bank held and I haven’t seen any evidence that she did so. I appreciate that F’s director’s personal address records were correct, and I can also see that it’s confusing that when she phoned the bank, they sometimes used these personal records to identify her. But I do think the bank had done enough to let her know that they didn’t have the up-to-date address for F and that only F could rectify this. F is a separate entity from its director, so NatWest couldn’t just assume that F’s director’s personal address would be the right address for F. In the circumstances, the bank wrote to F’s registered business address, which remains its official address on Companies House at the time of writing this. I don’t think this was unreasonable. F’s director had spoken to the bank on 11 November 2024, asking for a further hold. If she was in any doubt about what was agreed (and assuming she didn’t receive the letter), then she could have phoned the bank again. The bank also sent an email on 13 December 2024, which should have provided another prompt. F’s director says that its current account was closed without warning. This account had a large unauthorised overdraft, so the bank was entitled to issue a formal demand and then close it once the notice period had expired. In addition, several of the bank’s letters in fact contained warnings, for example the letters headed “Action required” sent in November and December 2024. I realise these letters may not have been received, due to the incorrect address, but as I haven’t found that was due to any error on the bank’s part, I don’t think the lack of warning was NatWest’s fault. In its response to F’s complaint, the bank acknowledged a service failing relating to F’s director’s phone number. This was that she was incorrectly informed on a phone call that the bank didn’t have her number. However, as in fact the bank did have her number, and she had spoken to the bank on a number of occasions, I’m satisfied this error didn’t have any wider effect on the matters complained of. I will leave it up to F to decide whether to accept NatWest’s offer of compensation in recognition of this error, if it remains open, but I am not going to make a direction on this point. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I do not require National Westminster Bank Public Limited

-- 2 of 3 --

Company to take any further action. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask F to accept or reject my decision before 31 March 2026. Louise Bardell Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --