Not upheld: scam - refusal to reimburse alleged scam losses complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Barclays Bank UK PLC should refund over £20,000 he lost to a task-based employment scam in June 2025. Mr G was contacted via messenger by someone posing as a recruiter, and after initial deposits built his trust, he began sending money via cryptocurrency transfers. Barclays intervened with questions, but Mr G—heavily influenced and coached by the scammers—provided evasive and inaccurate answers about his cryptocurrency holdings and investment activities. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence clearly linking the payments to the scam and determined that even with further intervention, Barclays could not have prevented the losses given Mr G's evasiveness and the scammer's psychological control over him. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr G likely fell victim to a sophisticated scam, there was insufficient clear evidence linking the specific payments to the scam due to lack of documentation showing the link between the cryptocurrency exchange transfers and subsequent transfers to the scammer. Even if such evidence existed, the ombudsman determined that Barclays' interventions were appropriate and proportionate, and that Mr G's evasiveness in answering questions—due to the scammer's coaching and emotional manipulation—meant that further probing by Barclays would likely have been met with credible but false answers. The ombudsman noted that Mr G was under such heavy influence from the scammers that even if Barclays had probed further, he would have continued to provide reassuring but inaccurate information. The fact that another bank may have broken the spell does not mean Barclays failed, as different interventions at different points can yield different results depending on what the account holder says.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website