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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Barclays failed to prevent him from losing £45,489 to an investment scam by not intervening when he made two large transfers to an EMI account. The ombudsman agreed Barclays ought to have intervened before the first disputed payment of £30,489 on 7 February 2025, given its size and irregularity. However, the ombudsman found that on balance, such an intervention would not have prevented Mr A's losses because contemporaneous evidence showed he was heavily influenced and coached by the scammer, relied on their reassurance, and followed their guidance whenever he encountered difficulties. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed that Barclays ought to have intervened before the 7 February 2025 payment due to its size and irregularity. However, the central question was whether such an intervention would have prevented Mr A's losses. The ombudsman concluded on balance it would not have, based on contemporaneous evidence showing Mr A was heavily influenced and coached by the scammer, relied on their reassurance, and followed their guidance whenever he encountered difficulties. The ombudsman assessed what was more likely than not to have happened rather than requiring certainty, and determined Mr A would likely have proceeded with the payments despite a Barclays intervention.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website