Not upheld: failure to prevent investment scam fraud complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C lost approximately £40,000 to an investment scam between late 2024 and 2025, making payments from her Barclays accounts to a crypto exchange. She complained that Barclays should have stopped the payments. While the ombudsman found Barclays probably should have intervened when Miss C made a £5,000 payment from her savings account on 20 November 2024, the complaint was not upheld because any intervention would not have likely stopped the scam. Miss C was deliberately splitting payments and using different methods to avoid fraud detection, had built trust in the scammer, and would not have been forthcoming if questioned by the bank.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Barclays should have intervened when Miss C made the £5,000 payment from her savings account on 20 November 2024 by asking questions and providing warnings, such intervention would not have likely stopped the scam. Miss C was deliberately avoiding fraud detection by splitting payments and using different payment methods. She had built trust in the scammer, believed the investment was legitimate, and was prepared to be dishonest with financial institutions. Evidence shows she would not have been forthcoming if questioned, meaning Barclays could not have uncovered the scam or provided a warning that would have overcome her conviction that the firm was legitimate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website