Veste

Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / fraud claim complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6080916 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorized transactions / fraud claim complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6080916
Decision date2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
FirmBarclays Bank UK PLC
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeunauthorized transactions / fraud claim
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. Barclays' £50 compensation for delay in posting formal response was deemed fair and reasonable.

Summary

Mr M complained that Barclays failed to refund disputed online payments totalling £2,418.88 made after his wallet and debit card were lost or stolen on 22 September 2025. Barclays investigated and concluded the payments were authorized by Mr M. The ombudsman examined evidence including IP address logs, account login timing, and OTP authentication requirements, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr M was aware of and participated in the payments. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman found Barclays' £50 compensation for administrative delays to be fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that consumers are responsible for authorized payments and businesses for unauthorized payments. The key evidence was that the disputed payments originated from an IP address extremely close to Mr M's home address that he regularly used to access his account, and that the payments required OTP authentication sent to his phone which he confirmed remained in his possession. The ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that someone at a location Mr M regularly frequented and with access to his phone made the payments, meaning Mr M must have been aware of and participated in them.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions11,13821%
Current account, all decisions45,59019%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website