Not upheld: scam refund claim / fraud prevention complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Barclays Bank UK PLC refused to refund money he lost to a scam involving cryptocurrency transactions. Mr S alleged he was targeted by a job scam through a social media messaging group and made multiple payments from his account. Barclays intervened on one payment of £1,922 and contacted Mr S, who stated he was investing in cryptocurrency to his own account and was not working with a broker. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld because Mr S provided insufficient evidence linking the transactions to a scam, gave inconsistent accounts of which payments were scam-related versus independent investments, and crucially provided inaccurate information during Barclays' intervention call that prevented the bank from identifying the actual risk. The ombudsman concluded Barclays' intervention was proportionate and Mr S's misleading responses would have justified permitting the payments.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr S failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the disputed transactions to a scam, including cryptocurrency statements, wallet addresses, or scam conversations. The ombudsman noted material inconsistencies in Mr S's account: he initially claimed the first four payments were part of the scam but later admitted they were independent investments. Most critically, during Barclays' intervention call, Mr S provided inaccurate answers, stating he was investing in his own account and had not mentioned the alleged job scam or social media group involvement. These inaccurate answers prevented Barclays from identifying the actual risk Mr S faced. Even if the payments were scam-related, the ombudsman concluded Barclays' intervention was proportionate and Mr S's reassuring answers would have justified permitting the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website