Not upheld: failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6267077 of 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00. failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6267077 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr P, a customer with multiple disabilities, visited a Barclays branch in November 2025 to close an account. When he urgently needed to use the toilet, staff refused to allow him access to the staff facilities located in a secure area. Mr P complained that Barclays failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities. The ombudsman found that while banks must make reasonable adjustments, refusing access to secure staff toilet facilities was not unreasonable given security and operational considerations, particularly as staff had directed Mr P to a nearby retailer with public toilets. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted that Mr P was a customer conducting legitimate business at the branch and acknowledged his disability-related needs. However, the ombudsman agreed with the investigator that banks should not be expected to allow customers to access staff toilets located in secure areas, as this raises security and operational concerns. The ombudsman balanced the duty to make reasonable adjustments against other relevant considerations, including the fact that staff directed Mr P to nearby public facilities. The ombudsman concluded that refusing access to secure staff toilets was not unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,165 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website