Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs F fell victim to a sophisticated cryptocurrency investment scam after seeing an opportunity on social media. She made five payments totalling £42,400 to a cryptocurrency provider account in her own name between February and March 2025. Barclays intervened on the second payment (£10,000) and spoke to Mrs F about fraud risks, but the intervention was insufficient - using leading questions and providing generalised warnings not tailored to cryptocurrency scams. The ombudsman found that Barclays should have recognised the heightened fraud risk and taken additional steps, and that better intervention would likely have uncovered the scam. Although Mrs F misled Barclays during the call and bore some responsibility for not verifying the investment, the ombudsman held Barclays 50% responsible for losses from payment two onwards. Barclays was ordered to pay Mrs F £20,000 plus interest at 8% simple per annum from the date of each transaction.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while customers are generally responsible for authorised payments, Barclays had a contractual right and regulatory duty to intervene where fraud was suspected. Taking into account FCA principles, regulatory guidance, the BSI Code, CRM Code standards, and good industry practice, Barclays should have recognised heightened fraud risk at payment two (£10,000 to cryptocurrency provider) and taken additional steps. The intervention Barclays did conduct was insufficient - it used leading and closed questions, provided generalised warnings not tailored to cryptocurrency scams, and did not explore Mrs F's understanding of cryptocurrency or intended use of funds. Better intervention would likely have uncovered the scam. Although Mrs F misled Barclays and the money initially remained in her control at the cryptocurrency exchange, Barclays can fairly be held responsible as it could have prevented the loss through proper intervention. Mrs F bears 50% responsibility due to her failure to conduct checks, reliance on social media, lack of documentation verification, and the unrealistic returns offered.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website