National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6233695

The complaint Mr and Mrs L complain about NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY’s (NatWest) handling of their Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) application form and the following complaint investigation. What happened A form for SMI was sent by Mr and Mrs L to NatWest in early 2025. NatWest completed this and sent it to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Another was sent to NatWest in June 2025, which was completed and sent to the DWP, again this wasn’t received. A third form was sent in September 2025, which was again completed and forwarded by NatWest to the DWP. The first two forms went missing, and Mr and Mrs L complained about this, and some other linked issues including the fact that not all copies of the form were sent by recorded delivery, that this had impacted their credit file and, later, about how NatWest had handled their complaint. NatWest said it had always forwarded on the completed form whenever it had been asked to, and it couldn’t be held responsible if the DWP had lost the form. NatWest didn’t agree with the majority of the other complaint points, but it did agree it had marked Mr and Mrs L’s credit file as showing the mortgage as being in an arrangement in March 2025 and it shouldn’t have. NatWest paid Mr and Mrs L £100 compensation for this, and later increased this to £150. Mr and Mrs L didn’t accept this and referred the complaint to our Service. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint. He explained that some points had been referred to us too late for us to consider. He also explained that Mr and Mrs L were also now complaining about events that had occurred after this complaint was referred to our Service, so that would be set up as a new complaint. The Investigator went on to consider this complaint but didn’t think it should be upheld. Mr and Mrs L didn’t accept this. They responded in detail to the Investigators view, but in summary, they said: • NatWest should’ve taken further steps when the forms weren’t being received by the DWP • NatWest should’ve provided them copies of the SMI form to take to the DWP • The impact of the incorrect recording on Mr and Mrs L’s credit file hadn’t been fully considered Mr and Mrs L have asked that the complaint be considered by an Ombudsman. So, it’s been passed to me to make a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr and Mrs L have submitted their complaint, and responded to our Investigator’s opinion, in great detail. I’ve considered everything they’ve said. I won’t be responding to each and every point they’ve raised. That simply reflects the informal nature of this Service. Instead, I’ll focus on address what I consider the crux of this complaint. Mr and Mrs L have also pointed to what they consider a number of regulatory breaches during NatWest’s dealing with them, including how they responded to their complaint. It’s not our role to enforce or police the regulations that NatWest is subject to. That’s a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority. It’s also not for us to investigate NatWest’s internal procedures, or to tell it to change its processes. Whilst we take into account relevant regulations whilst considering complaints, as well as relevant law and what we consider to be best industry practice, our remit is to reach what we consider fair and reasonable given the individual circumstances. And that’s what I’ve done when deciding this complaint. Contact notes provided by NatWest suggest it sent a form back to the DWP in March 2025, June 2025 and September 2025. NatWest has very little involvement in this process other than completing the forms and sending them on to the DWP. NatWest also confirmed that the first two forms were sent by special delivery and signed for as received. Mr and Mrs L are unhappy that the third wasn’t sent by special delivery, but there’s no requirement for it to do so, and NatWest has confirmed the reason for this was an issue with its mailroom at the time. The evidence I have suggests NatWest has returned the form on each occasion. So, I think it’s more likely than not that any error with the forms being mislaid is with the DWP. I can’t therefore say a mistake has been made by NatWest in this regard. Mr and Mrs L have said that NatWest should’ve provided them with a copy of the form so they could take it to the DWP. However, that’s not how the process of applying for SMI works. The form is completed by the applicant, then sent to the lender, and the lender is then required to send it straight to the DWP. If this process wasn’t followed, it’s likely to have caused further delays to Mr and Mrs L’s application. So, I can’t say NatWest was wrong in not agreeing to this. Mr and Mrs L are also unhappy that NatWest won’t refer them to its specialist support team. NatWest has said they don’t meet the criteria for this support as this is for customers who are in arrears, which Mr and Mrs L are not. I thank Mr and Mrs L for share details of their health, and I’m very sorry to hear what they have been going through for a number of years now. It seems that, due to their vulnerability, they would like to be under the care of the specialist support team. However, as I’ve said, the specialist support team is set up to help those who are behind on their payments. NatWest has confirmed Mr and Mrs L’s vulnerability is noted on its systems for when dealing with them. I think this is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. If Mr and Mrs L’s situation changes, for example they start to struggle further with making their payments, I’d expect NatWest to reconsider what assistance it can offer. But, at this stage, I don’t think there’s any requirement for NatWest to do anything further. I’ve not seen anything to suggest that NatWest hasn’t supported Mr and Mrs L in a manner which I would expect it to. NatWest has accepted that it made a mistake in recording an arrangement on Mr and Mrs L’s credit file. But it’s confirmed that it’s corrected this now. Mr and Mrs L have set out how this impacted them, including the fact that this made it difficult for them to get

-- 2 of 3 --

short term credit which they needed because they weren’t receiving the SMI they were entitled to. I’ve thought carefully about this. There are lots of factors that may have resulted in Mr and Mrs L having difficulties getting credit, whilst the payment arrangement may’ve been one of them, Mr and Mrs L have also shared other information related to their personal circumstances. I won’t set out the details of that here, but there’s not enough evidence to say the payment arrangement was the sole reason for the difficulties in obtaining credit. NatWest has paid £150 compensation for this distress and inconvenience this matter has caused. I think this fair and reasonable in the circumstances. And I’m not going to ask it to pay anything further. Finally, Mr and Mrs L have said they are unhappy with the customer service provided when responding to their complaint. Complaint handling isn’t generally an activity our Service can consider. But I’ve seen nothing within NatWest’s handling of the complaint or the linked customer service provided that makes me think it’s treated Mr and Mrs L in a manner I wouldn’t expect it to. My final decision Whilst I can see Mr and Mrs L feel very strongly about this matter, I’m satisfied the amount paid by NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY for the incorrect information recorded on their credit file is fair and reasonable. And, as I’ve not identified any other mistakes, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs L to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Rob Deadman Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --