James Holian — NatWest Group’s Chief Customer & Operations Officer
A NatWest mortgage holder says the bank has repeatedly declined, on multiple occasions, to explain how it would accommodate their autism, despite being informed of serious vulnerability and reported attempts on their life connected to whistleblowing.
Against a backdrop of police reports, a reported government review and ongoing possession proceedings, that failure to clarify its position is troubling.
During a recorded call to make a payment on 19 October 2026, the customer dictated a statement explaining that the money was being used to protect their home and personal safety. The NatWest litigation employee entered the statement into the bank’s system.
Then the employee asked:
“Just for my own curiosity — why didn’t you pay any arrears since the £2,000 payment?”
Just personal curiosity? From NatWest’s litigation department?
The wording raises three questions:
- If this was personal curiosity, why was an employee seeking financial information for private interest?
- If it was an official question, why make it sound informal and inconsequential, when the answer might be recorded or used in court?
- If NatWest has repeatedly declined to explain how it accommodates this autistic customer, what safeguards ensure potentially consequential questions are communicated appropriately?
The FCA expects firms to consider customer vulnerability, while the Equality Act 2010 can require reasonable adjustments for disabled customers.
The remark alone does not prove deception. But NatWest’s reported refusal to clarify its approach to autism makes the exchange far more concerning.
When a bank is pursuing possession of a vulnerable customer’s home, transparency about reasonable adjustments should not be another unanswered question.
For more context on the broader situation, see the latest on the NatWest Scandal here.