Not upheld: investment scam - failure to intervene in authorised push payments complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S lost £12,539.82 in an investment scam after making eight debit card payments to his own cryptocurrency account between March and May 2025. He complained that Barclays Bank UK Plc failed to intervene despite the unusual and high-risk nature of the payments. While the ombudsman agreed Barclays should have intervened with a better automated warning at the seventh payment when a suspicious pattern emerged, it concluded that such intervention would likely have been unsuccessful. The ombudsman noted that Mr S had given inaccurate answers to similar questions from another bank about a concurrent scam, was heavily invested in the scheme, and continued making payments even after expressing concerns about withdrawal conditions, all suggesting he would not have responded to warnings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Barclays should have intervened with a better automated warning at payment seven when a pattern of suspicious activity emerged, the ombudsman was not persuaded such intervention would have been successful. The evidence suggested Mr S may not have answered questions accurately (as evidenced by his response to his other bank's questions about a concurrent scam), he was heavily invested by April 2025 making him less responsive to warnings, and he continued making payments even after expressing concerns about withdrawal conditions, indicating he was committed to recovering his investment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website