Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6183473

The complaint Ms M complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC (“Barclays”) won’t refund payments she made as part of a scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary, I understand it to be as follows. Ms M met the third party (further referred to as “Person A”) on her way to hospital in December 2024, and their friendship and relationship developed over time. Over time, having built up trust with Ms M, Person A requested loans for various things. Ms M made many of these payments to Person A through her mobile banking app as well as via cash, which was facilitated by a withdrawal in branch. Then, some time later, Ms M didn’t receive her funds back from Person A, as promised. She grew concerned that she’d been the victim of a scam and so contacted Barclays to request reimbursement of her funds. Barclays looked into the matter but declined to reimburse Ms M on the basis that this was a civil dispute between her and Person A. Unhappy with this response, Ms M referred her complaint to our service. An investigator looked into Ms M’s complaint but didn’t uphold it on the basis that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she’d been the victim of a scam. Ms M disagreed with the investigator’s assessment and as the complaint couldn’t be resolved it has 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. In keeping with our role as an informal dispute resolution service, I will focus here on the points I find to be material to the outcome of Ms M’s complaint. This is not meant to be a discourtesy to either party and I want to assure them I have considered everything that has been submitted carefully. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of a complaint, I’m required to take into account relevant: law and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider to be good industry practice at the time. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a bank such as Barclays is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance

-- 1 of 3 --

with the Payment Services Regulations (in this case the 2017 regulations) and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. Here it’s not in dispute that the payment was authorised, so the starting position is that Barclays isn’t liable for the transactions. There are, however, some situations where we believe that businesses, taking into account relevant rules, codes and best practice standards, shouldn’t have taken their customer’s authorisation instruction at ‘face value’ – or should have looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the transaction before making the payment. Barclays also has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, pay due regard to the interest of its customers and to follow good industry practice to keep customer’s accounts safe. This includes identifying vulnerable consumers who may be particularly susceptible to scams and looking out for payments which might indicate the consumer is at risk of financial harm. Taking these things into account, I need to decide whether Barclays acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Ms M. Our investigator has already provided a very detailed assessment of Ms M’s complaint and I agree with their outcome, and for broadly the same reasons. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK are bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (FPS) reimbursement rules. Under these rules, most victims of authorised push payment (APP) scams should be reimbursed. The reimbursement rules define an APP scam in the following way: “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” The reimbursement rules also explain that private civil disputes are not covered. The rules define a private civil dispute 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”. Has Ms M fallen victim to a scam? In order for me to make a finding in favour of Ms M, I’d first need to make the finding that she has fallen victim to a scam. Ms M has advised that the payments she made were as the result of a long, protracted scam by Person A. Unfortunately, Ms M hasn’t been able to provide sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the purpose she was making, and Person A was receiving, the payments. This, then, makes it difficult for me to determine the purpose Person A had in mind for obtaining Ms M’s funds, whether they had any intention of returning the funds, and whether there has been any dishonest deception on Person A’s part. Because of this, I’m unable to say that there is sufficient evidence to confirm that Ms M has been the victim of a scam.

-- 2 of 3 --

I want to assure Ms M that I’ve taken all the circumstances she has explained into account when considering her complaint, as well as her explanations as to why she’s unable to provide any documentary evidence of her relationship with this third party. That said, without some evidence relating to this third party or the alleged scam she’s fallen victim to, I’m unable to say that Barclays have acted incorrectly in declining her claim for reimbursement. Should Barclays have prevented the payments? I’ve considered whether Barclays could’ve done any more at the time of the payments in order to prevent Ms M’s loss. As referenced earlier in my decision, Barclays has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, pay due regard to the interest of its customers and to follow good industry practice to keep Ms M‘s accounts safe. That said, Barclays has no obligation to protect its customers from bad bargains or poor investment choices. As I don’t believe Ms M is the victims of a scam, and that this is a civil matter between her and Person A, I don’t think Barclays should’ve, or could’ve, identified that she was at risk of fraud or financial harm at the time of the payment. As that’s the case, I’m unable to say that Barclays has failed any of their obligations by not preventing Ms M’s payments at the time it was being made. I understand that Ms M feels strongly that Barclays missed the opportunity to prevent her withdrawing funds in branch as part of this alleged scam. But, based on what Ms M has explained about her relationship with Person A at the time, I don’t believe Barclays ought to have identified that she was at risk of fraud or financial harm. As that’s the case, I can’t say that Barclays acted incorrectly in allowing Ms M to withdraw her funds in branch. I have considered that the faster payment Ms M had attempted shortly before the cash withdrawal to Person A wasn’t successful, but I don’t believe this payment being held for further checks is sufficient reason to say that Barclays ought to have identified any risks associated with the cash withdrawal at that time. Overall Overall, I’m not persuaded that Ms M has sufficiently demonstrated that she’s fallen victim to an APP scam as defined by the FPS reimbursement rules. I’m not saying that Ms M hasn’t suffered a loss, nor making a judgement as to whether Person A’s behaviour was acceptable. I’m only looking at whether I can fairly hold Barclays liable for her loss. I’ve every sympathy for Ms M as it’s clear that this situation has had a large impact on her. But, for the reasons stated above, I don’t believe Barclays has acted incorrectly in declining her claim or that they should reimburse her loss. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Billy Wyatt Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --