Barclays Bank Uk PLC · DRN-6101736

The complaint Mr S complains that Barclays Bank Uk PLC won’t refund the money he says he lost to a scam. What happened Mr S was looking for someone to renovate his bathroom, and found a contractor, who I will call C, on Checkatrade. C appears to have been the trading name of Mr D, who worked with his partner, Miss N. Mr D and Miss N came to Mr S’s property and provided a quote for the work, after some back and forth a final quote was agreed, and C said work would likely start in mid-August. Mr S paid a deposit of £4,468.66 to Mr D for the work, with an agreement to pay the balance when the work was completed. On 7 August 2025 Mr S emailed C to ask for an update on when work was likely to begin, and was told that Mr D was in hospital awaiting an operation, but that they would update Mr S soon. Mr S was subsequently told that Mr D was unable to meet his work commitments, or to repay creditors. Miss N said that she would be taking responsibility for C’s financial obligations and would be looking into an IVA so that fair repayment plans could be agreed. Mr S has doubts about what he has been told by Miss N about Mr D’s circumstances, he believes that C (and by extension Mr D and Miss N) intentionally deceived him by taking payment for work that they had no intention of completing. So, Mr S contacted Barclays to say he believed he had been the victim of a scam. Barclays looked into what had happened but did not agree to refund Mr S’s loss. It says that this is a civil matter between Mr S and Mr D, not a scam. Unhappy with Barclays’ response, Mr S brought his complaint to this service and one of our investigators looked into things. But they agreed with Barclays that this was most likely a civil dispute, and so Mr S was not entitled to a refund of the payments he had made. Mr S remained unhappy, he maintains that Mr D intentionally deceived him into making the payments when he knew he could not provide the service Mr S had paid for. As the case could not be resolved informally, it’s been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so and having thought very carefully about Barclays’ actions, I agree with the findings set out by our investigator. I do appreciate how disappointing this will be for Mr S but, whilst I’m sorry to hear of what’s happened, I don’t think I can fairly hold Barclays liable for his loss.

-- 1 of 3 --

When considering what is fair and reasonable in this case, I’ve thought about the relevant rules that were in place at the time this disputed payments were made. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK, like Barclays, have been bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (FPS) and the CHAPS reimbursement rules. Under these rules, most victims of Authorised Push Payment (APP) scams should be reimbursed – but “private civil disputes” are not covered. I’ve therefore considered whether what has happened between Mr S and Mr D meets the reimbursement rules’ definition of an APP scam or could more reasonably be classed as a civil dispute. The rules define an APP Scam as: “Where a person uses a fraudulent or dishonest act or course of conduct to manipulate, deceive or persuade a consumer into transferring funds from the consumer’s relevant account to a relevant account not controlled by the consumer, where: • The recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or • The payment is not for the purpose the consumer intended” By contrast, a private civil dispute is defined as a “dispute between a consumer and payee which is a private matter between them for resolution in the civil courts, rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty”. So, in order to consider what has happened here as an APP scam, I would need to be satisfied that it involves criminal deception. The evidence for this would therefore need to be convincing. Mr S paid Mr D, and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this was not who he intended to pay. So, Mr S cannot be said to have paid a recipient he did not intend to pay, as per the definition above. Mr S’s purpose for the payment was to pay for materials and labour relating to the renovation of his bathroom, and while I appreciate that the services and materials he had paid for did not materialise, I’m satisfied that the evidence suggests Mr D was operating a legitimate business which intended to provide those services. C may not have been registered on Companies House, but that’s because it appears to have been a ‘sole trader’ business rather than a limited company. And sole traders are common in the building industry, this does not mean that Mr D was not acting legitimately, and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he misled Mr S about the precise nature of his business. In addition, while I can’t share precisely what I have seen, Mr D’s account does appear to show that he was operating his account as one might expect from someone engaged in building and renovation work. I acknowledge that Mr D did not start the agreed work, but the correspondence Mr S has provided does appear to show that there were issues around Mr D’s health and financial situation which may have led to this failure and meant that Mr D was ultimately unable to meet his commitments. Mr S has said that the excuses for failing to start the work or refund the deposit were fabricated, but I’ve seen no evidence to support that assertion. All of this leads me to consider that Mr D was more than likely attempting to operate legitimately at the time these payments were made. I acknowledge that Mr S did not ultimately receive what he had paid for, but there are many reasons, other than fraud, why a legitimate business may fail to meet its commitments. A business may act unprofessionally but still be carrying out legitimate business, or it may get into financial or personal difficulties that mean it unable to meet its obligations to customers. And this service isn’t in a position to

-- 2 of 3 --

forensically analyse Mr D and Miss N’s actions here; we must consider the evidence that is before us. And, in doing so, I’ve not seen persuasive evidence that Mr D set out to defraud Mr S. So, I’m not persuaded the available evidence is sufficient to safely conclude that the purpose Mr D intended for these payments was different than the purpose Mr S intended, or that the payments weren’t made for the purpose Mr S intended. I do note Mr S’s comments about ActionFraud – that it has accepted his case as fraud – but I’m not aware of any detailed investigation on ActionFraud’s part, and I don’t think the fact that it took on Mr S’ case constitutes any kind of proof that Mr S was the victim of a scam as defined by the Reimbursement Rules. I acknowledge that ultimately Mr S has been left out of pocket, and I’m not saying that there is no issue between Mr S and Mr D, clearly there is. But that does not mean that it would be fair to hold Barclays liable for Mr S’s loss. I know this will be a huge disappointment to Mr S. I appreciate how strongly he feels about this case, and that what has happened here has had a significant impact on him. But for the reasons I’ve explained above, I do not consider that it was unreasonable for Barclays to decline Mr S’s claim under the relevant reimbursement rules. My final decision I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Sophie Mitchell Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --