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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Barclays failed to prevent her from losing approximately £13,000 to an investment scam involving a fake crypto investment firm called C. She made around 14 payments totalling over £31,000 to a crypto exchange, which she believed were converted to crypto and sent to the scammer. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint because Miss H failed to sufficiently evidence that she was scammed or that her funds reached C, with only generic information about C and a group chat reference provided. The ombudsman also noted that even if Barclays should have intervened, the transfers would not be covered by the Contingent Reimbursement Model as they were made to an account in Miss H's own name.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that Miss H had not sufficiently demonstrated she was scammed. While Barclays should have monitoring systems and could intervene in suspicious transactions, the key issue was insufficient evidence of loss. There was no clear evidence that funds reached C or that Miss H was connected to C's scam operation. Additionally, the transfers would not be covered by the Contingent Reimbursement Model as they were made to an account in Miss H's own name, so Barclays could not have recovered the funds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website