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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained that Barclays failed to protect her from a cryptocurrency investment scam, resulting in losses of £232,756.58 across 16 payments made between June and September 2025. She had opened a Barclays account specifically to facilitate payments to the scam and claimed Barclays should have intervened earlier. While the ombudsman agreed that Barclays should have intervened when the second £8,000 payment to a crypto provider was made, it found that Mrs M would not have heeded any warnings, as she had consistently withheld information, ignored clear warnings from multiple banks, and continued making payments even after Barclays explicitly told her she was being scammed and refused to process a payment. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman concluded that Barclays could not fairly be held liable for losses caused by the scammers.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Barclays should have intervened earlier when the second £8,000 payment to a crypto provider was made, the ombudsman was not persuaded that earlier intervention would have prevented Mrs M's losses. This was because Mrs M consistently withheld information, ignored clear warnings from multiple banks that were directly applicable to the scam, concealed the involvement of a third party coaching her, and continued making payments even after Barclays explicitly told her she was being scammed and refused to process a payment. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs M would not have wanted to stop or listened to Barclays' warnings, and therefore Barclays cannot fairly be held liable for her losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website