NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY · DRN-5980478

The complaint Miss G complains that NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY has treated her unfairly and failed to offer her a sustainable solution for the mortgage she holds jointly with her ex-partner after the fixed interest rate ended and the monthly payments became unaffordable. What happened Miss G has a joint mortgage with her now ex-partner. It was on a fixed interest rate until May 2023. When the fixed rate ended, the mortgage moved onto NatWest’s standard variable rate and the monthly payments increased from around £710 to around £1,150. Miss G was paying the mortgage on her own and she found the higher payments unaffordable. She wanted NatWest to offer a new fixed rate. Miss G is a victim of domestic and economic abuse by her ex-partner, who is also the joint mortgage holder. NatWest said it needed both account holders to agree to a new interest rate product – but Miss G said it wouldn’t be possible to get her ex-partner’s agreement because of the circumstances. No payments were made to the mortgage after the fixed rate ended. NatWest began possession proceedings and in June 2024 there was a court hearing. A suspended possession order was issued, requiring payments of the contractual mortgage payment plus just over £50 each month. Miss G made a complaint about NatWest’s refusal to offer her a new fixed rate. She said that had it done so she wouldn’t be in this situation, in increasing debt and facing the possible loss of her home. NatWest sent her its final response on 8 August 2024. Miss G referred the complaint to us, and one of our Investigators issued an assessment in November 2024. The Investigator concluded that if Miss G provided details of her finances to NatWest it should review her situation to see if an affordable solution could be found. In February 2025 Miss G went through her income and expenditure with NatWest. No payment arrangement for the mortgage was agreed, and in August 2025 Miss G complained again about the way NatWest was treating her. She wanted help to put the mortgage on a sustainable footing so that she can keep her home. NatWest said it had done nothing wrong. Our Investigator said he couldn’t revisit Miss G’s previous complaint, so he looked at what had happened more recently. He didn’t recommend that the complaint should be upheld. Miss G didn’t accept that conclusion, so the complaint has been referred to me to decide. 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. I’m sorry to read about what Miss G has been through – she has had a very difficult time. In deciding this complaint I’ve kept in mind everything she has said and provided about her

-- 1 of 3 --

situation. I’ve also considered relevant law, regulatory rules and guidance, and good industry practice. Having done so however, I have to tell Miss G that I’m not upholding this complaint. First of all, I must confirm that I won’t be reconsidering the complaint Miss G referred to us in 2024. An Investigator looked into that complaint and assessed it in November 2024. We won’t generally deal with a complaint again after we have already dealt with it. That’s provided for in the rules we operate under.1 I’m satisfied that we have previously considered Miss G’s complaint about the way NatWest treated her and its decision not to offer her a new fixed rate on her mortgage before August 2024. Miss G hasn’t provided any material new evidence about that which wasn’t available at the time of the Investigator’s assessment. I therefore find that this part of the complaint shouldn’t be considered further. I turn now to what happened from August 2024 onwards. Miss G is vulnerable. NatWest knew that and it should have kept that in mind in the way it treated her. I think it did that in referring Miss G to its specialist support team. Its records say that she was referred there in August 2024. This didn’t however guarantee that a solution would be found to make the mortgage affordable, or that NatWest should have stopped action to recover the mortgage debt indefinitely. A court had already issued a suspended possession order in June 2024, and the payments required under that order weren’t then made. NatWest was prepared to consider offering a new fixed interest rate on the mortgage on the basis of Miss G’s agreement alone, given the circumstances. It told Miss G that in its August 2024 final response letter. Miss G gave NatWest the details of her income and expenditure it needed to assess her situation in February 2025. That showed a monthly shortfall of more than £500 after all her outgoings. NatWest’s records show that it then looked at whether a new fixed rate would be affordable, including if it extended the mortgage term to the maximum its criteria allowed – but unfortunately that didn’t bring the monthly payments within Miss G’s budget. Soon afterwards, NatWest received a demand for more than £7,000 of unpaid service charges on the mortgaged property which, if added to the mortgage – as I understand they later were to protect NatWest’s security – would increase the balance and the monthly payments further. It was reasonable for NatWest to want to check that the monthly payments could be made sustainably before agreeing to apply a fixed interest rate product. While a new fixed rate is likely to be lower than the standard variable rate that currently applies to the mortgage, it may not ultimately work out cheaper overall. This is because NatWest’s fixed rates come with early repayment charges if the mortgage needs to be brought to an end early – such as in circumstances where the mortgage is no longer affordable and NatWest repossesses the property. So a fixed interest rate which a borrower can’t maintain can cost more in the end. I think it’s also important to bear in mind that NatWest had no fixed rates available at the relevant time which were as low as the rate Miss G had been paying until May 2023 – which was 2.45%. A new fixed rate wouldn’t therefore have meant her mortgage payments would have fallen to the same level as before; they would always have been significantly higher. In the circumstances, I can’t reasonably conclude that NatWest should have agreed a new fixed interest rate. There are other ways in which lenders can support borrowers who are in financial difficulty, besides adjusting the mortgage interest rate. Appropriate forbearance measures might for example include accepting reduced payments for a time, changing the payment basis of the mortgage temporarily, and extending the mortgage term. What is 1 See the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook, at DISP 3.3.4A R (5) and 3.3.4B G (3) - https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/disp3

-- 2 of 3 --

appropriate will depend on the borrower’s particular circumstances, but solutions should help make the mortgage viable and sustainable. I think it was reasonable for NatWest to want to understand Miss G’s financial situation before seeing whether it could offer concessions. I also think that in the circumstances it’s difficult to see what it could have done to make this mortgage affordable on a sustainable basis. Forbearance measures are generally for the short term, to give the borrower time to consider their options and try to get their finances back on track. No payments have been made to the mortgage since May 2023, and service charges have also been unpaid. The history of the mortgage indicates that unfortunately the payment difficulties aren’t short term and, in all the circumstances, I don’t think NatWest treated Miss G unfairly in deciding to resume legal action to repossess the property. I do think that NatWest’s communication with Miss G has fallen short at times – it hasn’t been in touch with her as frequently as I would expect in the circumstances or kept her updated promptly following its reviews of her situation. I don’t however consider that grounds to uphold this complaint bearing in mind all the circumstances, or that more regular contact during the period I’ve considered would have led to Miss G being in a better position with the mortgage now. I recognise that Miss G is in a very difficult situation and this isn’t the outcome she hoped for, but for the reasons I’ve explained I can’t fairly conclude that NatWest should now make changes to the mortgage or suspend further action to recover the mortgage debt. I encourage Miss G to keep NatWest up to date with her situation and any plans for repayment. Repossession should be a last resort but NatWest may ultimately decide to apply to court to take that step if no agreement can be found. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Janet Millington Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --