Upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6269767 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6269767 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £8,512 (£8,612 payment less £100 excess permitted under Reimbursement Rules) plus 8% simple interest per year from the date Barclays ought to have settled the claim under the Reimbursement Rules to the date of settlement, less any tax lawfully deductible. Barclays is entitled to take an assignment of rights to any future amounts recovered through the court judgment to avoid double recovery, subject to providing a draft assignment to Mr S for consideration and agreement. |
Summary
Mr S engaged an architect 'L' through a social media platform to manage a property extension project. After making initial payments for drawings and project management, Mr S paid £8,612 on 12 October 2024 for insulation panels that L claimed to be ordering from supplier 'G'. When a groundworker questioned L's legitimacy, Mr S discovered that G had received no orders or payments from L. Mr S obtained a court judgment against L but could not enforce it as L provided an invalid address and is now wanted by police. Barclays refused to refund the £8,612, treating it as a civil matter. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that L obtained the payment through fraudulent intent meeting the definition of an APP scam under the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules, and that Barclays' generic warning did not meet the required standard for the Consumer Standard of Caution Exception to apply.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that L obtained the £8,612 payment through fraudulent intent, meeting the definition of an APP scam under the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules. The evidence supporting fraud included: L's failure to place any order with the supplier, police confirmation that L is wanted for arrest, L's non-engagement with court proceedings, provision of an invalid address, and the absence of any legitimate use of the funds. Although L had provided some initial services and met Mr S in person, these do not rule out fraud and are consistent with social engineering tactics. The warning presented by Barclays was generic and did not clearly convey Barclays' assessment of scam probability. Even if the warning met minimum standards, Mr S did not act with gross negligence in proceeding with the payment, as he was the victim of a sophisticated deception by a third party who had established apparent legitimacy through prior work. The Consumer Standard of Caution Exception therefore does not apply.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,208 | 21% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 20,976 | 21% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website