Santander UK Plc · DRN-6070486

The complaint The estate of Mrs F complains that Santander UK Plc (“Santander”) hasn’t protected the late Mrs F from money being misappropriated from her account. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat everything here. In brief summary, the late Mrs F had an account with Santander on which there was a third-party mandate. In May 2024, the late Mrs F visited a Santander branch to request the third-party mandate be cancelled, and for £5,400 to be transferred to an account in the name of who I’ll call Ms N, one of her daughters. Santander processed these requests. Mrs F subsequently sadly passed away in April 2025. And the estate of Mrs F complained to Santander that it had allowed the third-party mandate to be cancelled and for money to be transferred from her account to Ms N in circumstances where Santander ought to have known that Mrs F wasn’t in a sound condition to really consent to this. The estate of Mrs F also said that Santander had indicated to it that Ms N had arranged through Santander to set up a secret joint account with Mrs F that it shouldn’t have allowed. Ultimately, Santander didn’t uphold the estate of Mrs F’s complaint, and the estate of Mrs F referred the matter to us. One of our Investigators looked into things here but couldn’t resolve the matter informally. The case has therefore been passed to me for a final 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. Having done so, I’ve reached materially the same conclusions as our Investigator, and for materially the same reasons. I’m very aware that I’ve summarised this complaint briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focused on what I think is the heart of the matter. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it – I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this, reflecting the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. A third-party mandate is an agreement made by the account holder (in this case the late Mrs F) to allow a third party to support them with their banking arrangements. The account holder can remove this agreement at any time. Santander has said that the late Mrs F, when attending branch, completed security successfully and that it actioned her request to transfer £5,400, and I have no reason to doubt this – I’m satisfied that this is what most likely happened at the time. There are two parts to authorising such a request and payment: authentication and consent. I’m satisfied that the late Mrs F authenticated the request and payment by successfully

-- 1 of 2 --

completing security and requesting these things in person. However, to be satisfied she truly authorised these things, I also need to be satisfied that she consented to them. I’ve thought very carefully about this and what the estate of Mrs F has said about the late Mrs F’s mental state at the time. And I do accept it’s entirely possible that Mrs F’s mental state was such that a power of attorney would have been appropriate, or some other real protection from consenting to transactions and requests she might not otherwise have consented to. However, I think it is at least as likely, probably more likely, that at the time Mrs F did consent to the requests she made. I also haven’t seen evidence that persuades that it would be fair for me to say that Santander ought to have probed further than it did or that it was unreasonable that it acted on Mrs F’s requests as valid. I’ve thought about everything the estate of Mrs F has said, including its assertion that Santander indicated that Ms N had arranged through Santander to set up an account on a joint basis with Mrs F. But whilst I don’t doubt the estate of Mrs F’s honesty and integrity in believing this to be true, the information Santander has provided persuades me that no other accounts were held with Santander by Mrs F, other than the ones the estate of Mrs F were already aware of. This means, and I know the estate of Mrs F will be very disappointed about this, that I’m not persuaded I can fairly say that Santander didn’t do what I’d reasonably expect of it here. I therefore don’t uphold this complaint. My final decision For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mrs F to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Neil Bridge Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --