How could NatWest ignore the wishes of my dying husband?
Mrs R.L. writes: In March, my husband was given three months to live, and we asked NatWest to help so that his business account would not be interrupted when he passed away. NatWest provided forms, which we signed, assigning the account to me. My husband died on May 26 and the bank told me everything was in order, but when I provided his death certificate NatWest denied all knowledge of transferring the account to me.
THIS is a horror story, and NatWest has held up its hands and admitted right away that it got things badly wrong.
You have told me how the bank said it was wrong in the first place to say that you could simply take over the business account, and how NatWest then closed it. This meant that when customers sent payments to the account, their money was returned to them.
And this in turn meant that your husband’s one employee could not be paid.
All of this goes against what you had been told earlier. On April 7, NatWest confirmed that your husband had asked for your name to be added to the account.
On April 27, you both signed a form provided by the bank, which appeared to transfer the account to your name. However, on the day your husband died, the bank emailed him to say it needed more details before the transfer could proceed.
Oddly, the email subject line showed the name of a different business, which was unknown to you. Perhaps it was never meant for you, because a day later a NatWest staff member texted you saying: ‘I can confirm you are showing on the accounts and company mandate.’
So where does this leave you? If your name is on the account, why does NatWest now say you cannot use it? The bank has told me it has definitely closed the account, after realising your husband was a sole trader, so in effect, the business died with him. A spokesman told me: ‘We deeply apologise for the handling of Mrs L’s complaint, and for the misinformation she was given.’
Staff involved are being retrained and NatWest originally offered you £350 compensation for poor service. I can say that it has now doubled this to £700.
However, you had asked for £3,500, which you felt was warranted, not because of financial losses but to compensate for distress and for what you believe is damage to your reputation. You have rejected the £700, and told me that you plan to complain to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Ombudsman. In fact, the FCA will not investigate individual complaints, though of course the Financial Ombudsman Service will.
I think your fundamental problem will be that while your husband was certainly the bank’s customer, you were not, and NatWest’s serious error l ay in wrongly telling you that the account was yours.
I suspect the bank will argue it owes less responsibility to you because of this, so I look forward to the Ombudsman’s decision.