Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S fell victim to two scams: an investment scam promoted on social media and a recovery scam. He made payments totalling £26,640.04 to various accounts and cryptocurrency exchanges between April and August 2025. Barclays intervened on the initial payments to Mr S's own account but Mr S misled the bank about the purpose, claiming it was for a car purchase. The ombudsman found that Barclays' intervention was appropriate, Mr S's explanation was plausible, and the later cryptocurrency payments were not suspicious enough to warrant further action. The complaint was not upheld as the loss was caused by the scammers, not by any failure by Barclays.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the payments were not protected by PSR mandatory reimbursement rules because they were made to Mr S's own account and by debit card to cryptocurrency providers. While Barclays should have been alert to fraud risks, the ombudsman concluded that Barclays did intervene on the initial payments and Mr S's explanation about pooling money for a car purchase was plausible. The later cryptocurrency payments were not sufficiently large or suspicious to warrant intervention, and the ombudsman noted that not every crypto payment indicates fraud. The loss was caused by the scammers, not by any failure by Barclays.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website