Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC (trading as Barclaycard)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Barclaycard refused to refund transactions made by his partner during a coercive and financially abusive relationship. Barclaycard declined to treat the transactions as fraudulent but refunded interest and charges totaling a substantial amount in January 2026. The ombudsman upheld Barclaycard's position, finding that under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the transactions were authorized despite the coercive circumstances, as the regulations do not recognize duress as invalidating consent. Although acknowledging Mr B's distressing experience and noting that other financial institutions had refunded him in full, the ombudsman determined that Barclaycard's refund of interest and charges was sufficient remedy and declined to order further action.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require both authentication and consent for authorized transactions. While acknowledging the coercive circumstances, the ombudsman found that the PSRs contain no provision invalidating authorization due to duress or lack of free consent. Mr B had provided his card and PIN to his partner (apparent authority), and although this was done under coercion, the regulatory framework does not recognize duress as invalidating consent. The ombudsman determined that Barclaycard's refund of interest and charges was the appropriate remedy under the fair and reasonable remit, consistent with what would be ordered in similar cases.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website