Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P lost £8,800 to a scammer posing as a visa application facilitator between March and July 2024. He reported the scam to Barclays in January 2026 and requested reimbursement, which Barclays refused. The ombudsman considered the complaint under the CRM Code, which requires firms to reimburse APP scam victims except where the customer lacked a reasonable basis for believing the recipient was genuine. The ombudsman identified numerous red flags including costs significantly exceeding government fees, requests for payment before employment offers, unverifiable intermediaries, and requests to pay for interviews. Although Mr P faced time pressure due to visa expiry, the ombudsman found he was not vulnerable and should have conducted basic checks. The complaint was not upheld as Mr P lacked a reasonable basis for believing the scammer was legitimate and Barclays was not reasonably aware of the visa scam risk.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CRM Code framework, which requires firms to reimburse APP scam victims except in limited circumstances. The key issue was whether Mr P had a reasonable basis for believing M was genuine. The ombudsman found multiple red flags that should have concerned Mr P: the quoted cost was over 70% higher than the publicly available government fee; payments were requested before an employment offer was in place; the Certificate of Sponsorship contained redacted information and incorrect job details; the introduced individuals could not be verified; Mr P was asked to pay for an interview; and M requested unrelated personal financial assistance. While acknowledging Mr P's time pressure due to visa expiry and lack of prior Skilled Worker visa experience, the ombudsman concluded these did not constitute vulnerability that would prevent holding him responsible. The ombudsman also found Barclays was not reasonably aware of a visa scam risk based on payment characteristics and that the 18-month reporting delay meant funds were unlikely to be recoverable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website