DRN-6023644

The complaint Ms L has complained National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company is holding her liable for debts on two credit card accounts she never took out. She has also disputed transactions made on these cards, including balance transfer payments to other accounts. What happened A credit card account with NatWest was opened in May 2023, with a further account opened in March 2025. In May 2025 Ms L contacted NatWest as she’d learnt these were credit cards in her name and she was being asked to repay what was owed. She disputed transactions to a specific retailer (who I’ll call Q), as well as balance transfer payments. Ms L confirmed she has various medical conditions which make it very difficult for her to manage her finances. She also noted that her external letterbox had been broken in 2023 and this had been reported to her landlord. NatWest reviewed Ms L’s fraud claim and confirmed they had enough evidence to show the payments had been made by her. They continued to ask Ms L to repay the debt as they felt the other payments had been authorised by her. Ms L brought her complaint to the ombudsman service. By this time, NatWest accepted that Ms L was complaining about potential ID theft as well as fraudulent transactions. Our investigator considered whether Ms L had most likely opened these credit card accounts. She could see that on both occasions – May 2023 and March 2025 – a copy of Ms L’s passport was supplied to verify her identity. This was also backed up by selfies and a live video. The phone linked to the account was the number Ms L had provided to her service. Our investigator could also see that Ms L had contacted NatWest in April 2025 to change her address and then later in May to report what she believed was fraud. Overall, our investigator felt she was unable to ask NatWest to do anything further. Unhappy with this, Ms L has asked an ombudsman to consider her complaint. She has provided further comments that she never opened the NatWest account, nor authorised the transactions. 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’ve reached the same conclusion as our investigator. I’ll explain why. Where there is a dispute about what happened, I have based my decision on the balance of probabilities. In other words, on what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence.

-- 1 of 3 --

When considering what is fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account: relevant law and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Existing consumer credit legislation requires a credit provider to show that a credit account was properly opened. In this complaint, NatWest has shown what evidence they hold in support of both credit card applications in Ms L’s name. These details match those of Ms L. What is most convincing is the copy of Ms L’s passport, along with selfies and a video. Whilst I note Ms L doesn’t believe this demonstrates she knowingly, or with consent, applied for these NatWest accounts, I don’t agree. For the first credit card account taken out, there are numerous transactions. These were never disputed until 2025, despite expenditure being made shortly after the card was opened in May 2023 and with payments being made to the account from a current account in Ms L’s name. Separately I can see Ms L used the account opened in 2025 to carry out balance transfers to other accounts in her name. I appreciate Ms L has also brought a complaint about one of the other accounts, but I believe the evidence I’ve seen shows this was authorised by Ms L. And when considering whether Ms L knew about and opened these accounts, I am satisfied she did. I can see she contacted NatWest in April 2025 to confirm her change of address as she moved to a different geographical location. She’s unlikely to have done that if she’d not been aware of these accounts. I note that in two separate complaints to our service, Ms L has disputed other transactions to Q as she does for the first credit card account opened with NatWest. I have noted separate confirmation from Q that Ms L held an account with them, and that deliveries were made to her home address. I am satisfied Ms L authorised these transactions. I have considered whether there is scope for ID fraud to have taken place here. But certain aspects convince me otherwise: • The application data – including a copy of Ms L’s passport along with selfies – means these applications weren’t made by an unknown third party; • The disputes relate to transactions over a prolonged period. These would have needed to have been carried out by someone close to Ms L based on the level of details involved. Ms L has confirmed she lives alone. Although she had care givers, these also changed over the time involved. • The NatWest credit cards – particularly in view of the balance transfers – clearly relate to other credit cards in Ms L’s name. There are numerous payments made to the NatWest accounts from Ms L’s current account. I can’t see these were ever disputed. I’ve also considered the medical evidence she’s provided. This is not in dispute, and I appreciate the impact her condition this must have on her. However, I am satisfied Ms L applied for these credit card accounts and authorised the disputed transactions. I won’t be asking NatWest to do anything further.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is not to uphold Ms L’s complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms L to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Sandra Quinn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --