Not upheld: investment scam - refund dispute and contributory negligence complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D fell victim to an investment scam in 2021 after being contacted via WhatsApp and persuaded to invest £25,000 through a cryptocurrency account to a fraudulent broker called AF. Barclays intervened early but allowed the payments to proceed, later acknowledging it could have done more. Barclays refunded 50% of the loss, but Mr D sought full reimbursement, claiming Barclays had assured him AF was legitimate and that future payments would be blocked. The ombudsman rejected Mr D's complaint, finding that while Barclays' intervention was insufficient, Mr D failed to conduct basic due diligence despite unrealistic returns, unsolicited contact, and readily available online information about the scam. The 50/50 liability split was upheld as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle of contributory negligence, finding that while Barclays should have intervened more effectively, Mr D also failed to exercise sufficient due diligence. The promised returns were unrealistically high, the contact was unsolicited, no formal documentation was provided, and information about AF being a scam was readily available online. Mr D's recollection of Barclays telling him it had checked AF was contradicted by the call recording. The FCA warning was published after most payments were made, so it did not change the liability assessment. A 50/50 split of responsibility was deemed fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website