Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent authorised payments to scammers complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A lost approximately £124,000 to a job task scam between February and April 2025, making 54 payments through her Barclays account to money remittance providers and cryptocurrency wallets. She funded the scam through savings, property sale proceeds, remortgage funds, and loans. Barclays made fraud intervention calls later in the scam when Miss A claimed she was investing in cryptocurrency with experienced friends, but she provided a convincing cover story. The ombudsman found that while Barclays should have intervened at the sixth payment, on balance of probabilities such intervention would not have prevented her losses because Miss A deliberately concealed the scam's true nature, had her own doubts but proceeded anyway, ignored repeated warnings from family members in law enforcement, and was determined to recoup her losses through alternative payment methods.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Barclays should have intervened at the sixth payment due to emerging fraud patterns, the critical issue was whether such intervention would have made a difference. The evidence showed Miss A deliberately and convincingly concealed the scam's true nature, had her own doubts but proceeded anyway, ignored warnings from family members in law enforcement, and was driven by desperation to recoup losses. Even if Barclays had invoked the Banking Protocol or refused payments, Miss A would likely have found alternative payment methods through other providers she had already opened accounts with. The ombudsman concluded that on balance of probabilities, no level of bank intervention could have prevented her losses given her determination and deception.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website