Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs P complained that Barclays Bank Plc refused to refund unauthorised payments and a £8,000 loan made from their joint account on 1 November 2025. Mr P claimed he had lost possession of his phone early that morning and did not authorise the transactions. Barclays declined the refund, citing biometric evidence showing that previously registered biometrics were used to access the account at 12:21pm that day, and the implausibility of a third party knowing the passcode. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that Mr P's testimony was unreliable due to a significant change in his account of how he lost his phone (initially claiming he lost it in a taxi, later claiming it was snatched from his hand), and that Barclays' reliance on the biometric evidence and the inconsistency in Mr P's testimony was reasonable and fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr P's testimony was unreliable due to a fundamental and meaningful change in his account of how he lost his phone. The ombudsman noted that the biometric evidence from Barclays' systems indicated that previously registered biometrics were used to access the account at 12:21pm on 1 November 2025, at a time when Mr P claimed he no longer possessed the phone. The ombudsman found Mr P's explanation for changing his testimony (trauma, embarrassment, and fear regarding company communications) to be implausible, as someone whose phone was snatched would have known this immediately rather than discovering the loss only upon arriving home. The unusual pattern of money movement (in and out of the account rather than being sent quickly to a third party) also supported Barclays' position. Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the ombudsman concluded that Barclays' decision to hold Mr P liable was reasonable and fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website