Partially upheld: service failure / irresponsible administration of share transfers / data protection breach complaint against Barclays Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained to Barclays about significant delays in processing in specie share transfers from his Fineco and Barclays accounts to Degiro, following Fineco's closure of UK operations. Barclays accepted multiple failings including providing incorrect information about account holder symmetry requirements, unnecessarily delaying transfers based on erroneous assumptions, and inappropriately disclosing Mr B's shareholding information to Degiro. Mr B subsequently sold his Barclays shares at an alleged loss and repurchased them via Degiro, claiming compensation for financial losses and inadequate distress compensation. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, rejecting financial loss claims as resulting from Mr B's own choices rather than direct breach, but increasing distress and inconvenience compensation from £350 to £550 to reflect the prolonged service failures, multiple administrative errors, data handling issues, and significant effort required by Mr B to attempt resolution.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Barclays breached FCA Principle 2 (due skill, care and diligence) and COBS 2.1.2R (clear, fair, not misleading information), and likely breached contract. However, financial losses claimed do not flow directly from the breach but result from Mr B's own decision to sell shares rather than wait for transfer completion. Mr B's belief that shares would be automatically sold after 31 March 2025 deadline was mistaken; Fineco's published material confirmed transfers remained possible post-deadline. Barclays' final response letter provided clear explanation of issues, giving Mr B reasonable basis to expect eventual transfer completion. The sale and repurchase was not reasonable mitigation but a choice made under mistaken assumption. Mr B could have sold shares at any time (including late December 2024 when profitable) but chose not to, suggesting he likely would have retained them. The data disclosure to Degiro was unfair but is encompassed within distress and inconvenience compensation. Compensation for distress and inconvenience is appropriate given prolonged delays, multiple failings, numerous calls required, and data handling issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website