Not upheld: scam and fraud - investment scam complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S was scammed by someone posing as an investment advisor who encouraged him to make cryptocurrency payments totaling over £23,000 between November 2025 and January 2026. Barclays reimbursed 50% of the seventh payment and all subsequent payments, but Mr S complained seeking full reimbursement and compensation. The ombudsman found that the first six payments were too low in value to warrant intervention, but Barclays should have intervened by the seventh payment. The ombudsman upheld the 50% reimbursement as fair given Mr S's contributory negligence in investing with an unverified person he had recently met and never heard speak, despite recognizing risks. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the first six payments were relatively low in value and did not stand out as unusual given Mr S's previous account activity, so Barclays was not unreasonable in not intervening earlier. However, the seventh payment of £1,845.90 should have triggered intervention. The ombudsman held Mr S partly responsible because he invested on advice from someone he had recently met and never heard speak, placed great trust in M despite recognizing risks, did not conduct research on the company, received no paperwork, and did not verify M's uncle's credentials. The 50% reimbursement was therefore fair as a reflection of contributory negligence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website