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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss P lost £2,805 to a job scam after responding to a remote employment opportunity on social media and making multiple payments to scammers via remittance services and direct bank transfer. Barclays voluntarily refunded 50% of the loss, but Miss P sought full reimbursement, claiming Barclays failed to protect her and that her vulnerabilities warranted greater intervention. The ombudsman found that while the scam was sophisticated, Miss P should have questioned multiple red flags including the absence of an employment contract, requests for advance payments, and coaching on what to tell her bank. The ombudsman determined Miss P's failure to conduct basic online research constituted contributory negligence that justified the 50% refund reduction, and that the payment values did not warrant Barclays intervention. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that customers are presumed liable for authorised payments they knowingly make, but considered whether Barclays should have intervened. While acknowledging the scam had sophisticated elements, the ombudsman identified multiple red flags that should have alerted Miss P to the fraud (no employment contract, advance payment requests, coaching on what to tell banks). The ombudsman found Miss P failed to exercise reasonable care by not conducting online research, which would likely have uncovered the scam. This contributory negligence justified the 50% reduction in refund that Barclays had already provided. The ombudsman also found the payment values did not warrant intervention by Barclays, and that no funds could have been recovered as they passed through accounts in Miss P's own name.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website