Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6328722 of 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6328722 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr T complained to Barclays about its failure to trace an account he claimed to have held since 1980 and its handling of his Data Subject Access Request. Barclays responded that it held no records of such an account despite conducting searches of legacy and archived systems. The DSAR response was initially sent to the wrong address but was corrected. The ombudsman found that Barclays carried out reasonable checks and that, on the balance of probabilities, the account had likely been closed many years ago. The complaint was investigated and responded to within required timescales. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Barclays carried out reasonable checks across its legacy and archived systems, including checks for various account types and offshore investments. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely that Mr T had closed the account many years ago rather than that it remained open. Barclays was not required to retain records of closed accounts indefinitely. The DSAR was responded to within required timelines, and while sent to the wrong address initially, was promptly corrected. The complaint was investigated and responded to within required timescales.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,208 | 21% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 34,193 | 32% |
| Current account, all decisions | 52,014 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website