DRN-6270991

The complaint Mr C complains about the service he received from NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (“NatWest”) when updating his address on his joint account held with his ex-partner. In particular, Mr C is unhappy that NatWest updated the mailing address on the joint account which his ex-partner had the ability to access despite telling NatWest how important it was that his ex-partner wasn’t made aware of his whereabouts. What happened Mr C held a joint account with his ex-partner with NatWest. On 29 March 2025 Mr C updated his address with NatWest. Mr C says that NatWest assured him that that his new address wouldn’t be shared with his ex-partner. Following this NatWest updated both the address held for Mr C’s profile and the mailing address for the joint account held with Mr C’s ex- partner. On 15 April 2025 a note was added to Mr C’s profile stating there had been a change in his relationship circumstances and to “just be aware of my situation”. Following this on 31 July Mr C received a letter enclosing a replacement debit card from NatWest addressed to his ex-partner at his new address. Being concerned that his address had been shared with her, Mr C contacted NatWest and raised a complaint. NatWest’s terms and conditions for joint accounts say: “If you all live at the same address (or you give us the same email address) we’ll send joint communications to all of you at that address. If you live at separate addresses, we’ll only send communications to one of you.” On 5 August 2025 a note was added to Mr C’s profile stating please do not disclose customers address to ex partner. NatWest acknowledged that when updating his address its agent didn’t fully explain the difference between Mr C’s customer profile address and the mailing address associated with the joint account. NatWest explained that customer profiles can have different addresses but for joint accounts there is a shared mailing address for sending items such as debit cards, cheques books and statements and that Mr C’s ex-partners debit card was sent automatically as part of NatWest’s internal processes and that it hadn’t specifically disclosed Mr C’s address to her. NatWest confirmed it had cancelled the debit card that was sent out and ordered a new one to be sent to Mr C’s ex-partner’s address. But NatWest confirmed his ex-partner would be able to ask about the correspondence address on the account if she wanted to as being a joint account holder she had the same rights as Mr C.

-- 1 of 3 --

NatWest apologised and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused and paid Mr C £500 compensation for this. NatWest advised it could update the mailing address for the joint account to reflect his ex- partner’s address or Mr C could confirm for it to update a return to branch marker, but that this would mean when ordering debit cards etc he’d have to collect these from branch or call NatWest and request items be sent to his personal address. NatWest also explained how he could have his ex-partner removed from the account – albeit this would require her consent via its app. Mr C was dissatisfied with this and so brought his complaint to this service. Mr C says he was the victim of domestic abuse from his ex-partner and had NatWest told him that all post relating to the joint account would also be sent to his address from then on, he could’ve taken steps to ensure he wouldn’t have to deal with this. Mr C doesn’t think the compensation NatWest has paid is good enough for the impact caused, believing due to its error there was a significant risk to his safety and he is now forced to relocate, incurring substantial costs and ongoing emotional harm. One of our investigators looked into Mr C’s concerns and agreed that NatWest hadn’t provided Mr C with all the information he needed to make an informed decision when updating his address and that he wouldn’t have changed his address had he known his ex- partner would be able to access it. They thought NatWest could’ve explained to Mr C when he contacted it about his concerns that he was also able to close the account without having contact with or the permission of his ex-partner in-line with the terms and conditions of the account and that Mr C could’ve done more to mitigate the potential impact NatWest’s mistake had had on him by using this option. Overall, they thought as NatWest had failed to provide Mr C with clear information about the joint account and options available to him and that NatWest should compensate Mr C a further £250 on top of the £500 already paid which NatWest have agreed to. But Mr C remains dissatisfied with this and says NatWest failed to implement safeguards and wants compensation that reflects the cost of relocation and the mental health impact of the safeguarding failure. Mr C has asked for an ombudsman’s 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. Firstly, I hope Mr C won’t take it as a discourtesy that I’ve summarised this complaint in the way that I have. I’ve no doubt that Mr C has been through a traumatic time which had has had a significant impact on his mental health and wellbeing and NatWest’s error only compounded things. NatWest have already acknowledged it made an error in failing to fully explain the difference between Mr C’s customer profile address and the mailing address associated with the joint account when updating his address and the distress this caused Mr C when he realised his ex-partner could gain access to his new residential address. To put things right NatWest have already compensated £500 and agreed to pay further

-- 2 of 3 --

compensation of £250 as suggested by our investigator. So what I need to consider is whether £750 compensation in total for the distress and inconvenience this error caused Mr C is enough and a fair way to settle his complaint – and I think it is. I say this as although I appreciate Mr C’s circumstances with his ex-partner were already extremely difficult, the evidence doesn’t suggest that Mr C’s ex-partner gained access to his address or harmed him as a result of NatWest’s error. And as I can see NatWest provided Mr C with all the available options to rectify the matter without having to have contact with or permission from his ex-partner – such as updating the mailing address to hers, removing his address or closing the account down completely - and my understanding is - certainly not at the point of bringing his complaint to this service - Mr C hasn’t instructed NatWest to do any of these things, but instead continues to hold a joint account despite all the upset, I don’t think there is anything more NatWest can do. I don’t think this means that what happened hasn’t had a significant impact on Mr C - especially considering the legal steps Mr C has taken to prevent his ex-partner from contacting him. And I do agree that Mr C has suffered some distress as a result of NatWest’s error and compensation is warranted for this. But I think the £750 NatWest has agreed to pay is fair and in-line with what I’d usually recommend and I’m not persuaded an uplift on this is warranted. I appreciate Mr C doesn’t think this is enough, but our role isn’t to punish or penalise the businesses we cover for their performance or behaviour – that is the role of the regulator. And so it follows that I uphold Mr C’s complaint and direct NatWest compensate Mr C a further £250. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I’ve decided to uphold Mr C’s complaint and direct NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY compensate Mr C a further £250. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Caroline Davies Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --