Not upheld: investment scam - failure to prevent fraud complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Barclays Bank UK PLC should reimburse approximately £29,000 he lost to an investment scam between February and May 2025. Mr M was deceived by firm 'X' into sending funds via crypto exchange 'C' to accounts in his own name, receiving false returns before realising the scam when unable to withdraw funds. Barclays provided scam warnings and conducted two phone interventions during which Mr M stated he was making legitimate crypto investments after independent research and was not dealing with intermediaries. The ombudsman found that while Mr M was not fully honest about third party involvement, Barclays took reasonable steps and any further intervention would likely not have prevented the loss given Mr M's plausible explanations and apparent knowledge. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Barclays had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect customers from fraud, the key issue was causation - whether a proportionate intervention would have prevented the loss. Although Mr M was not fully honest about third party involvement, the ombudsman concluded that even with better questioning or additional interventions (such as a branch visit), Mr M would likely have proceeded with the payments given his apparent knowledge of crypto, his stated independent research, and his plausible explanations. The ombudsman also noted that payments to accounts in Mr M's own name carry reduced fraud risk compared to payments to unknown third parties, affecting the proportionality of required interventions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website