Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6173225

Complaint Company L complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC didn’t pay a refund after it reported falling victim to a scam. This complaint has been brought on Company L’s behalf by Mr S, one of its directors. It has also been assisted by a professional representative. As it was primarily Mr S that interacted with the alleged fraudsters, I have, at times, referred to him in the text that follows. Background In 2022, Company L invested its money with Company M. The details of the investment are opaque, but Mr S says he was approached by an independent introducer who convinced him it would be safe. He says he was led to believe that “the investment carried no risk, as the funds were held in a non-depletion account, with both capital and interest insured by a reputable insurance company, and a trustee overseeing the arrangement.” He was told he would receive an annualised 20% return paid on a monthly basis. It isn’t entirely clear what he was investing in, but Mr S described it as an “arbitrage loan note.” When the expected returns stopped, it occurred to him that he might have fallen victim to a scam and so he notified the bank. It didn’t agree to pay a refund. Mr S wasn’t happy with that and so he referred his complaint to this service. It was looked at by an Investigator who didn’t uphold it. Mr S disagreed with the Investigator’s opinion and so the complaint has been passed to me to consider and come to a final decision. Findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As a starting point, the legal position is that a firm is generally required to process payments and withdrawals authorised by its customer, in line with the Payment Services Regulations (in this case, the 2017 regulations) and the account terms and conditions. It is accepted that the disputed payments were authorised, so Company L is presumed liable at first instance. However, that is not the end of the story. Good industry practice required Barclays to monitor account activity or transactions that appear unusual or out of character and could indicate a risk of fraud. Where such concerns arise, I would expect the firm to take steps to protect its customer. This could involve issuing a clear warning during the payment process or contacting the customer to understand the circumstances behind the transaction. However, none of those expectations are relevant unless I’m persuaded Company L was the victim of a scam. The threshold for establishing fraud is a high one. In criminal proceedings, the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt,” but this service assesses cases using the civil standard of proof, which is based on the balance of probabilities. Under this standard, a finding of fraud must be more likely than not. Even so, the bar remains high. It is not enough for fraud to be a compelling or persuasive explanation, nor is it sufficient for it to be the most likely among several possible explanations. It must be more probable than the opposite conclusion i.e. that fraud did not occur. I understand that Company L invested its money and expected to be paid the returns that were promised. When these stopped, I can understand why Mr S concluded that Company L

-- 1 of 2 --

must have fallen victim to a scam. However, the mere fact that the company it invested with failed and therefore couldn’t perform its side of the contract doesn’t necessarily mean he is the victim of a scam. Companies can fail for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with fraud. It seems just as likely that this was a case of a legitimate investment that had gone wrong, rather than Company L being the victim of a scam. I am not seeking to downplay the seriousness of what has happened. Company L has invested a substantial amount of money and has clearly been let down by Company M. However, my role is to determine whether its loss can properly be attributed to an APP scam. While I remain open to that possibility, Mr S has only put forward a hypothesis that his payments stopped because Company M perpetrated a scam. He has not provided any evidence to support this assertion. In the absence of such evidence, there is no reasonable basis on which I could reach a finding in his favour. If additional evidence becomes available, Company L should make it available to Barclays so that it can reconsider his claim. If he’s unhappy with how it responds, it may be able to refer a new complaint to this service. Final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Company L to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. James Kimmitt Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --