Not upheld: fraud - investment scam; failure to prevent fraud through inadequate intervention and warnings complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R lost money to an investment fraud scam after being targeted through social media. He made multiple payments from his Barclays account between May 7-23, 2024, which were transferred to fraudsters. Barclays intervened on several occasions and identified heightened fraud risk indicators, including an overheard conversation with an unknown third-party, but failed to act on these concerns and released payments. The ombudsman found Barclays ought to have done more to protect Mr R but concluded it was unlikely that better intervention would have prevented the loss, as Mr R had resisted specific fraud warnings from another provider and continued following the fraudster's instructions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Barclays had a regulatory obligation to intervene where it identified fraud risk and ought to have acted more diligently on the heightened risk indicators present (particularly the overheard third-party conversation and the suspicious pattern of payments), the critical question is whether better intervention would have prevented the loss. The ombudsman found that Mr R was so persuaded by the fraudster that he resisted warnings even from his other account provider, which gave specific crypto asset fraud warnings that directly matched his situation. The ombudsman concluded that had Barclays made better efforts, Mr R would likely have responded similarly to how he responded to the other provider's warnings, continuing to follow the fraudster's instructions. Therefore, while Barclays failed in its duty to act diligently, it is unlikely this failure caused the loss, as Mr R would probably have persisted regardless.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website