Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that Barclays blocked her account without providing a reason and sought compensation for distress. The account was blocked on 16 June 2025 and unblocked on 3 September 2025 while Barclays conducted a regulatory review. Miss C was pregnant at the time and experienced significant stress, and the block resulted in failed direct debits and an overdraft that negatively affected her credit file. The ombudsman found that Barclays acted appropriately in exercising its legal and regulatory obligations to monitor accounts and was not obliged to disclose the specific reasons for the block. Although acknowledging that communication could have been clearer, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint as the blocking itself was justified and not unnecessarily delayed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Barclays' legal and regulatory obligations to monitor accounts and verify transaction purposes override other considerations. The bank was entitled to block the account and was not obliged to disclose the specific triggers or legal basis for the block. While the ombudsman acknowledged that communication could have been clearer and that Miss C experienced genuine distress, particularly given her pregnancy, the blocking itself was appropriate and not unnecessarily delayed. The ombudsman found that Miss C could have mitigated losses by contacting direct debit providers directly and that Barclays did not breach FCA Principles 6, 7, or 12.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website