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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P lost approximately £84,000 to an employment scam between August 2024 and January 2025, making 37 authorised bank transfers from his Barclays account to his own accounts with other firms and cryptocurrency wallets before the funds were moved to scammers. Barclays declined to reimburse him because the payments were authorised by Mr P himself. The ombudsman found that while Barclays should have implemented better fraud monitoring and conducted more thorough interventions when some payments triggered fraud detection systems, the bank could not have prevented the loss because it could not have identified the specific employment scam based on the payment patterns and the cover story Mr P provided (and would likely have continued to provide). The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Mr P authorised the payments under the Payment Services Regulations and is presumed liable in the first instance, Barclays had obligations to monitor for fraud and take protective steps. However, the ombudsman found that while Barclays' interventions were superficial and should have been more thorough, the bank could not have prevented the loss because: (1) the payment patterns could indicate fraud generally but did not necessarily point to an employment scam specifically; (2) Mr P provided a consistent cover story about cryptocurrency investment that would likely have persisted even with further questioning; (3) any warning Barclays could reasonably have given would have been about cryptocurrency investment scams, not employment scams, and would not have resonated with Mr P; and (4) Mr P was determined to make the scam payments and would have found alternative means if Barclays had declined the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website