Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-5979481

The complaint Ms L and Ms T complain that Barclays Bank UK PLC released the deeds of the late Mr W’s property, allowing him to be exploited by third parties. What happened The late Mr W had a mortgage with Barclays. The property was unregistered so the paper deeds were lodged with Barclays when the mortgage was taken out and held by Barclays throughout the term. After the mortgage was repaid, Barclays received a letter signed by Mr W asking for the deeds to be sent to his solicitor. Barclays sent the deeds to the solicitor, who acknowledged receipt. Sadly Mr W has since passed away. His daughters Ms L and Ms T now bring this complaint on behalf of his estate. They said that at the time of the deeds request Mr W was elderly and had been diagnosed with dementia. They were acting as his power of attorney at the time. They say that Mr W went into a Barclays branch, and called Barclays, to request the deeds. Both times Mr W was accompanied by a third party and was unable to pass its security verification. Ms L and Ms T say that this ought to have put Barclays on notice that Mr W might be vulnerable and at risk of exploitation. But when it received a typewritten letter signed by Mr W, it simply released the deeds without question or further checks. As a result, Mr W signed over a share of the property to a third party and also altered his will in their favour. Ms L and Ms T complain on behalf of Mr W’s estate. They say that Barclays should not have released the deeds. As a result of doing so, Mr W was left open to exploitation. His estate has had to spend considerable legal fees in resolving the problems that were caused. Barclays said it hadn’t done anything wrong. The mortgage had come to an end and it had no reason to withhold the deeds. It had received a request, signed by Mr W, to release the deeds to his solicitor and it had done so. It wasn’t responsible for anything that happened after that. Our investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld, so Ms L and Ms T asked for it to be reviewed by an ombudsman. 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. I’m sorry to hear of Mr W’s passing, and I hope Ms L and Ms T and their family will accept my condolences on their loss. I’m also sorry to hear of the difficulties in dealing with Mr W’s estate. I’ve very carefully considered everything they’ve said. But having done so, I’m afraid I don’t

-- 1 of 3 --

think I can fairly uphold the complaint. When he took out the mortgage, Mr W deposited the deeds with Barclays. At the time, before electronic registration of land became compulsory, it was standard for mortgage lenders to hold deeds while the mortgage remained outstanding, returning them to the borrower once the mortgage was paid off. It’s not clear, because of the passage of time, exactly when Mr W’s mortgage came to an end. Barclays doesn’t hold detailed records anymore. But it’s said that there was a small outstanding balance of around £1 which remained in place, and therefore the mortgage account was never closed down, so the deeds weren’t returned to Mr W. In 2017, when Barclays received the letter requesting the return of the deeds, it wrote off the £1 balance, closed the account, and sent the deeds to the solicitor nominated in the letter. The solicitor acknowledged receipt. As I say, in general I would expect a mortgage lender to return the deeds at the end of the term, or (as in this case) on request following the end of the term. Once the mortgage is repaid, Barclays had no entitlement to them and no need to retain them. Sometimes, when paper deeds were still necessary, a lender would agree to hold paper deeds safely as an additional service following the end of a mortgage. But there’s no evidence Mr W had signed up to that service and in any case even if he had the deeds would have been released on request. Ms T and Ms L have explained that at this time Mr W was in his eighties. He had been diagnosed with dementia, and there was a power of attorney in place. He was vulnerable and at risk of exploitation – and was in fact being exploited. With that in mind, I’ve thought about whether there was any reason for Barclays to have particular concerns about returning the deeds to Mr W in the circumstances of this specific case. The letter itself doesn’t give any grounds for concern. It’s typewritten, with a signature and a hand-written date. It requests the deeds be returned not to Mr W direct, but to a solicitors’ firm. I’m not a handwriting expert. But I’ve looked at the signature on the letter alongside the signature held by Barclays and the signature on the power of attorney form Mr W also completed around this time. All three signatures appear similar to me. I’ve not seen anything that ought to have led Barclays to question whether the letter had in fact not been signed by Mr W. I’ve also not seen any evidence that Barclays was aware of Mr W’s health concerns. It knew his age. But I wouldn’t expect a bank to treat age alone as a reason to doubt a customer’s ability to make decisions for themselves. While there was a power of attorney in place, it wasn’t dependent on Mr W losing capacity, and although it was signed in 2017 it wasn’t registered with Barclays until 2023. So this wasn’t something Barclays could have known about at the time either. Ms L and Ms T say that Barclays ought to have been on notice that there might be a problem, because Mr W had previously failed to pass security both in a branch and on the phone, and on both occasions had been accompanied by a third party. There’s no surviving record of any interaction in a branch, and Ms L and Ms T weren’t there either. So there’s very little weight I can attach to what might have happened then.

-- 2 of 3 --

But Ms L and Ms T do have a recording of the call with Barclays. I’ve listened to that. A woman called Barclays and said that they had been into a branch to request the deeds and given a number to call. She said she was Mr W’s stepdaughter. She said Mr W had hearing difficulties. She put Mr W on the call. Mr W gave his full name and date of birth directly. He also gave his mother’s maiden name, but that was relayed via the female caller due to a difficulty hearing what was said on the phone – Barclays said it couldn’t pass security unless it could ask questions direct with the customer. Having listened to the call, I don’t think it ought reasonably to have given Barclays cause for concern. It was explained that Mr W had hearing difficulties. But he could answer questions relayed to him by the female caller – the issue for Barclays was that he was not always speaking to the Barclays agent direct. I haven’t heard evidence that Mr W was being prompted what to say or was unable to answer the questions he was asked for reasons other than a hearing impairment. I wouldn’t expect this call to have raised concerns about Mr W’s wider capacity to make decisions or welfare. In all the circumstances, I don’t think there were grounds for Barclays to have particular concerns about Mr W’s situation or for it to withhold the deeds when requested. It received a request, signed by Mr W, to release the deeds to a solicitor. A solicitor is a reputable recipient it was reasonable to presume would be acting in Mr W’s best interests. The mortgage had been paid off some time before, there was no reason for Barclays to retain the deeds, and Mr W was entitled to them. Returning them to Mr W as requested was a reasonable step to have taken in the circumstances. I don’t think any problems that may have happened after that are something Barclays could have foreseen or could reasonably be held responsible for. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Simon Pugh Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --