Not upheld: account restrictions and fraud prevention measures complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Barclays unfairly blocked his online banking and stopped payments after he made two online transfers to his own account described as 'crypto'. Barclays flagged both payments as requiring verification and attempted multiple times to contact Mr K for information, but he refused to provide details about the beneficiary account or confirm his identity. Barclays blocked his online access and involved police under the banking protocol due to concerns he was a victim of a scam. The Ombudsman found Barclays acted fairly and reasonably in protecting Mr K, as his refusal to provide basic account information gave legitimate grounds for suspicion, and Barclays made numerous contact attempts and accommodated his stated vulnerabilities.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Barclays has a duty of care to protect customers from fraud and scams. The terms and conditions explicitly permit Barclays to delay payments when it reasonably suspects a customer may be scammed and to request information to confirm the payment is genuine. Mr K's refusal to provide basic information about the beneficiary account, combined with his description of it as 'crypto' and inability to name the bank or opening date, gave Barclays reasonable grounds for concern. The blocking of online access and involvement of police under the banking protocol were proportionate protective measures. Barclays made numerous attempts to contact Mr K and accommodated his vulnerabilities by arranging an interpreter and offering alternative contact methods. GDPR was not breached as Barclays only requested necessary information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website