Not upheld: scam and fraud - reimbursement claim complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Barclays Bank UK PLC failed to reimburse £4,544.00 he lost to a scam involving a fraudulent businessman. Mr H had authorised three payments via a legitimate money remittance service (R) believing he was dealing with a legitimate car dealer, but was subsequently scammed. Barclays declined to reimburse the funds and also declined to raise a chargeback claim. The ombudsman found that the payments did not present sufficient red flags to warrant intervention by Barclays, as they were sent to a legitimate merchant, were not exceptionally high in value, and did not drain the account. The complaint was not upheld and no reimbursement was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the starting legal position that account providers must process authorised payments and customers are responsible for authorised transactions. While recognising regulatory requirements for fraud protection, the ombudsman assessed whether the payments warranted intervention by examining: (1) the payee (a legitimate merchant R with no elevated fraud risk), (2) the payment pattern (spread over two days, not draining the account), and (3) the value (higher than typical but not significant enough to warrant concern). The ombudsman concluded the payments did not present typical features of financial harm and did not warrant intervention. Regarding the chargeback claim, the ombudsman noted Mr H's dispute was with the scammer, not the merchant R, and R had successfully provided the service Mr H authorised.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website