Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6178099

The complaint Mr M complains that Nationwide Building Society made numerous errors administering his change of borrower application. What happened Mr M had an existing mortgage with Nationwide and wanted to remove the second borrower. He initially asked for a decision in principle in May 2024 but that was unsuccessful based on his income alone. So, he applied again with his partner replacing the previous second borrower in February 2025 and a joint mortgage offer was made on 28 March 2025. From that point Nationwide made a number of errors which it has acknowledged. Both parties appear to agree on what errors were made. They include: • An incorrect solicitor added to the mortgage offer. • Failure to identify that error for five months and identify that Mr M’s chosen solicitor was not on Nationwide’s panel. • Nationwide’s solicitor provided Mr M’s solicitor with a standard remortgage ‘pack’, rather than one for change of borrower, causing further delay. • Unclear communication regarding the legal representation requirements of the transaction, leading to further delays. • The ultimate failure of the process to conclude before the mortgage offer expired, despite an extended deadline. Mr M says the impact has been the loss of the mortgage offer; a prolonged time of stress resulting in an impact on his physical health and a visit to a hospital, legal costs; and a loss of confidence in Nationwide. Nationwide responded to Mr M’s complaint acknowledging its errors and offering Mr M £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also refunded the application fee of £125 paid by Mr M. Mr M says his solicitor has agreed to refund its fees. But he thinks Nationwide’s offer of £750 is inadequate to compensate him for the stress he has endured throughout the failed process. So, Mr M asked us to consider his complaint. Our investigator thought Nationwide’s offer was a fair and reasonable resolution to Mr M’s complaint based on our published guidance on awards for distress and inconvenience. Mr M didn’t agree and reiterated the impact of Nationwide’s errors on him. He’s submitted evidence of a hospital admission and said he thinks Nationwide should pay him £2,500 to resolve his complaint. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

As the significant errors made by Nationwide are largely undisputed, it isn’t necessary for me to establish whether or not those errors occurred or who was responsible for them. Instead, to decide Mr M’s complaint I’ve thought about whether Nationwide’s offer is fair and reasonable. In doing so I’ve drawn on my own experience with similar complaints and, like our investigator, considered our guidance on awards for distress and inconvenience. Our awards are designed to compensate for the impact of errors made, not punish or fine the business that made the error. So, along with all of Mr M’s comments, that’s something else I’ve born in mind when thinking about an appropriate level of compensation. Our investigator provided Mr M with a link to our website for our awards guidance and quoted the most applicable sections in his view. I think it’s important to consider those when establishing the most appropriate award in this case, so I’ll quote our guidance again here: “An award of over £300 and up to around £750 might be fair where the impact of a mistake has caused considerable distress, upset and worry – and/or significant inconvenience and disruption that needs a lot of extra effort to sort out. Typically, the impact lasts over many weeks or months, but it could also be fair to award in this range if a mistake has a serious short-term impact. An award of over £750 and up to around £1,500 could be fair where the impact of a business's mistake has caused substantial distress, upset and worry – even potentially a serious offence or humiliation. There may have been serious disruption to daily life over a sustained period, with the impact felt over many months, sometimes over a year. It could also be fair to award in this range if the business's actions resulted in a substantial short-term impact.” Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge that I can understand why the sequence of events described by Mr M would be incredibly frustrating for him and why they may have an impact on his mental health. I understand that he’s been through the whole application process and that has resulted in him being no further forward with his goal. So, I’ve seen that Mr M is likely to have suffered considerable distress, upset and worry. I’ve also seen, from the level of correspondence between him and Nationwide, that the errors caused significant inconvenience and effort on Mr M’s part to resolve the matter, ultimately unsuccessfully. And I’ve seen that his efforts lasted many months. I think that aligns with our guidance describing when £300 to £750 is an appropriate award. I haven’t seen that Mr M has been caused serious offence or humiliation, and I don’t think the level of inconvenience caused amounts to what could be described as a serious disruption to daily life, though I understand the matter is likely to have been frequently in Mr M’s thoughts for a long period of time. That said, a process of this type would always have involved some administration on Mr M’s part and would always have taken some time to complete. So not all of the time and energy involved was the result of errors on Nationwide’s part. Indeed, as Mr M has acknowledged, his own solicitor’s actions were not error free. I have given careful thought to the harm to Mr M’s health he says was attributable to Nationwide’s errors, and I don’t doubt that his health concern was troubling for him. I’ve seen the evidence Mr M has provided of his hospital admission. That shows his concern was pain to his neck, upper back and shoulder, along with palpitations. The evidence confirms what Mr M says about the health concerns he experienced. But it doesn’t conclude or indicate that the direct cause of Mr M’s health condition was his dealings with Nationwide. While it does refer to him being “under lots of stress”, I have no way of knowing the entirety of what else was going on in Mr M’s life around that time. So, it wouldn’t be reasonable for me to

-- 2 of 3 --

conclude, with any degree of certainty, that Nationwide caused Mr M’s health concerns – either entirely or to a substantial degree. I note also that Mr M has not achieved his goal in completing the change of borrower process. I understand that’s frustrating for him and accept that his frustration with all that’s happened led him not to want to apply again. But ultimately that was his decision, and his frustration is part of what I’ve considered in establishing the most appropriate level of award. On balance, while I’ve seen that Nationwide caused Mr M a significant level of distress and inconvenience, I’m not persuaded that the impact is similar to that described in the higher of the two award brackets outlined above. So, I think an award at the top end of the lower of those award brackets is appropriate. And that – an amount of £750 – is what Nationwide has already offered. I note also that Nationwide has offered to refund its administration fee and Mr M’s solicitor has agreed to refund its fee. So, I don’t think Mr M has suffered a financial loss in addition to the distress and inconvenience caused. As I think Nationwide’s offer to resolve Mr M’s complaint is fair and reasonable, I’ll not ask Nationwide to do anything more than pay Mr M the amount it offered and refund his administration fee, if it hasn’t already done so. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold Mr M’s complaint about Nationwide. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Gavin Cook Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --