Not upheld: scam/fraud - failure to intervene on suspicious payments complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L lost approximately £24,000 to a cryptocurrency investment scam after seeing a social media advertisement. He transferred funds through an electronic money provider (R) and directly from his Barclays account to the scammers. R contacted Mr L, warned him about scam risks, and declined a payment, but Mr L continued by moving funds back to Barclays and making direct cryptocurrency transactions. The ombudsman found that while Barclays should have intervened on some payments, Mr L's demonstrated determination to continue despite R's detailed warnings meant intervention would not have prevented the losses. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Barclays should have intervened on some payments, the ombudsman found that intervention would not have changed Mr L's decision to proceed. This conclusion was based on the fact that R had already provided detailed warnings about the scam risks in a direct call with Mr L, highlighting specific red flags relevant to his situation, yet Mr L continued making payments and actively circumvented R's restrictions by moving funds back to Barclays and using alternative payment methods. The ombudsman concluded Mr L was determined to continue despite being aware of significant risks, likely due to manipulation by the scammers and belief in promised profits.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website