Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6212400

The complaint Mr P complains about the way Nationwide Building Society handled his direct debit indemnity claim. What happened Mr P asked Nationwide to raise direct debit indemnity claims for a membership he held. Contrary to Mr P’s expectations, Nationwide didn’t credit his account straight away as it wanted to investigate the claims first. Mr P wasn’t happy with this, or with the information and service he received during the process. It also became apparent that Nationwide had missed some of Mr P’s direct debits from the claim. Mr P complained to Nationwide. In response, Nationwide recognised some service failings, particularly around its communication with Mr P. It also accepted it had incorrectly omitted direct debits from the claim. In total, Nationwide offered Mr P £300 for the impact of its failings, but maintained it had followed the correct process for direct indemnity claims overall. Mr P wasn’t satisfied and brought the complaint to our service. He said Nationwide should have credited his account with the disputed funds sooner, and that Nationwide’s service and communication hadn’t been good enough. He was also unhappy with elements of the complaints process. While the complaint was with our service, the merchant successfully challenged Mr P’s claims and so Nationwide debited Mr P’s account for the temporary credit amounts it had previously applied. Our Investigator looked into Mr P’s complaint, including Nationwide’s re-debiting of his account, but didn’t uphold the complaint. He found Nationwide to have correctly adhered to the direct debit indemnity process, including in its reversal of the credits to Mr P’s account. He found the compensation offered by Nationwide to have fairly made up for the impact of its poor service, but said he hadn’t considered Mr P’s complaint handling concerns as this wasn’t something our service could look into. Mr P didn’t accept the Investigator’s view. He believed the claim to have been incorrectly declined and said that the debiting of his account had left it overdrawn. The Investigator empathised with Mr P’s position, but didn’t think Nationwide had got anything wrong in relation to the way it handled Mr P’s direct debit indemnity claim. He added that Mr P would need to complain to Nationwide separately if he wanted to pursue a complaint about the effects of him being in his overdraft. As no agreement could be reached, the case was passed 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, I won’t be upholding this complaint. I realise this won’t be the answer Mr P wanted, and he is likely to be disappointed by my findings, so I’ve set out my reasoning below. I would first like to mention that my role here is to think about the individual circumstances of this complaint and decide whether Nationwide did something wrong which caused Mr P to lose out. If I think it did, I can then consider what – if anything – Nationwide should do to set matters right. In reaching my conclusions, I’ve taken an independent view of the circumstances, and have considered relevant rules and regulation. But I have ultimately decided this case on what I believe to be fair in all the circumstances of this complaint. I realise that I’ve summarised this complaint in less detail than Mr P and I’ve done so using my own words. I’ve concentrated on what I consider to be the key issues. The rules that govern this service allow me to do so. But this doesn’t mean that I’ve not considered everything that both parties have given to me. And although I’ve read and considered the whole file, I’ll keep my comments to what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it’s not because I haven’t considered it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach the right outcome. The direct debit guarantee is designed to protect customers when there’s an error with the payment of a direct debit – such as when a payment is taken on an incorrect date, or if the wrong amount is collected. When this happens, customers are usually entitled to an immediate refund from their bank or building society, pending any successful challenge from the originator. But in Mr P’s case, Nationwide felt further investigation was required before it accepted the claims, and I don’t think this was unreasonable in the circumstances. I say this as Mr P’s claims amounted to several thousands of pounds, and so I think it was fair for Nationwide to consider whether the claims fell within the direct debit guarantee before accepting them. To do otherwise could have unfairly exposed Mr P to the sudden re-debiting of the funds from his account at a later date. But there was always a risk of the credits to his account being reversed upon successful challenge by the originator, and this is what happened in Mr P’s case. I can see Mr P was made aware that the credits could be re-debited and, later, that they would be. And so I think Nationwide let Mr P know ahead of time what actions it would be taking. I’ve also considered Mr P’s complaints about the service and communication issues he raised about Nationwide. It’s clear that things haven’t always gone smoothly during his interactions with Nationwide’s agents and that direct debits were missed from his initial indemnity claim. Nationwide has awarded a total of £300 compensation – an amount which I think accurately reflects the impact of its mistakes. And, given this is in-line with what I would likely have directed Nationwide to pay had this case reached me without an offer, I think this amount is fair. Our Investigator has already explained to Mr P that complaint handling isn’t a covered activity – and I agree. But I’m mindful that, despite Mr P’s unhappiness with elements of Nationwide’s handling of his complaint, particularly its communication, he has ultimately been able to refer his complaint to our service. And this is something which he has now done. So while Mr P will likely be disappointed with this outcome, I think Nationwide has correctly adhered to the direct debit guarantee’s rules, and has adequately compensated Mr P for the impact of its service failings. As such, I won’t be directing Nationwide to do more for Mr P in relation to the matters covered in this decision. I note Mr P’s comments about entering his

-- 2 of 3 --

overdraft and the impact this has had on him, and I would encourage him to speak with Nationwide regarding any concerns he has with repaying his overdraft. My final decision My final decision is I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. James Akehurst Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --