NatWest Banking Blunder Nearly Costs Homebuyer Their New Property
A homebuyer from Northern Ireland has revealed how a series of NatWest banking errors nearly resulted in the loss of their new home, highlighting severe service failings and inadequate compensation offers.
Security Checks and Biometric Hurdles
Two weeks before completing on the purchase, the customer notified NatWest that £260,000 would be transferred via their current account to a solicitor for the exchange of contracts. The bank initially assured there would be no issues and even sent a congratulatory bottle of alcohol. However, after the transfer was made, NatWest abruptly refused access to the funds, citing the need for additional security checks.
First, the bank instructed the use of a public fax bureau to transmit sensitive personal details, a method widely considered insecure. Then, it demanded that the customer resubmit biometric data in a branch, but provided addresses for locations in Cornwall and the Hebrides, despite the customer living in Northern Ireland. After booking a ferry to the mainland to comply, NatWest reversed its decision and allowed biometric renewal at Ulster Bank, but by then, significant delays had occurred.
Vendor Impatience and Financial Chaos
Meanwhile, the property vendors lost patience and placed the home back on the market, putting the entire purchase at risk. In desperation, the customer contacted NatWest's fraud department, where it was revealed that a Chaps payment instruction could have been made by phone all along. The bank verified the payee account and twice promised immediate fund transfers, but failed to follow through both times.
It was later discovered that NatWest had recorded the sort code incorrectly, a critical error that compounded the delays. The bank offered a mere £175 in compensation for this mistake, a sum the customer deemed insulting, questioning whether NatWest would accept such a paltry amount if roles were reversed.
NatWest's Admission and Ongoing Dispute
When questioned, NatWest apologised for "the inconvenience" and admitted to a "service failing" that caused a "slight delay," referring specifically to the sort code error. The bank only acknowledged further service failings under pressure, conceding it should have explored emergency options for sending information sooner. It belatedly recognised that the experience "did not meet our usual high standard."
The completion eventually occurred two weeks later than planned, but the delays nearly cost the customer their new home and an additional month's rent. The case is now with the Financial Ombudsman Service for resolution, as the customer seeks fair redress for the terrifying ordeal of being barred from life savings during a critical financial transaction.
This incident underscores broader concerns about banking reliability and consumer protection in high-stakes property purchases, urging greater accountability from financial institutions.
