Not upheld: account administration failure, mandate management, failure to recognise authority complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6054599 of 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00. account administration failure, mandate management, failure to recognise authority complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6054599 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | account administration failure, mandate management, failure to recognise authority |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Barclays has already paid £200 in compensation (£100 for failing to recognise the new deputy's authority and £100 for the cheque error). The ombudsman found this compensation reasonable and did not order any additional remedy. The ombudsman noted that if the new deputy provides Barclays with a copy of the court order discharging the existing deputy's authority, Barclays should promptly remove that deputy from the account. |
Summary
Mr S, a vulnerable person lacking capacity, had a new deputy appointed by the Court of Protection in April 2024 to replace an existing deputy. The new deputy later raised concerns about potential financial abuse by the existing deputy and requested their removal from Mr S's account. Barclays initially updated its systems to recognise the new deputy but subsequently failed to maintain this recognition and refused to remove the existing deputy without proper court documentation. The new deputy complained that Barclays should have removed the existing deputy and that debit card payments continued despite claims they had been cancelled. The ombudsman found that while Barclays made some errors (failing to recognise the new deputy's authority and declining a cheque), it acted reasonably in requiring court documentation to discharge the existing deputy's authority. The ombudsman determined that the new deputy's refusal to provide the relevant court order was the primary cause of the existing deputy remaining on the account, and that the £200 compensation already paid by Barclays was appropriate.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Barclays made errors in failing to recognise the new deputy's authority and declining a cheque incorrectly, these errors did not justify upholding the complaint. Regarding the removal of the existing deputy, the ombudsman determined that Barclays acted reasonably in requiring proper court documentation to discharge the existing deputy's authority, as the new deputy themselves had expressed uncertainty about the existing deputy's status in June 2024 and later refused to provide the relevant court order despite claiming one existed. The ombudsman noted that the new deputy's refusal to provide the separate court order was the primary cause of the existing deputy remaining on the account, not Barclays' failure to act. The ombudsman also found that the debit card payments and CPA cancellations were not Barclays' responsibility, as the existing deputy remained authorised by the original court order and the CPAs were cancelled due to the reported loss of the debit card.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,165 | 22% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website