Barclays Bank UK Plc · DRN-6196651

The complaint This complaint involves a joint account – and I will refer to the complainants as Mr R(1) and Mr R(2). This complaint has been primarily brought by Mr R(1). They are unhappy with the amount of compensation offered following fraudulent transactions on their Barclays Bank UK Plc account – which were subsequently refunded. What happened The facts of this complaint are well known to both parties so I will only briefly summarise them here. This complaint concerns two disputed transactions. The first transaction occurred on 24 June 2025 and was for £600. This was refunded on 26 June 2025. The second transaction occurred on 25 July 2025 and was for £800, this was refunded on 12 August 2025 (based on the account statements). Barclays has accepted that it hadn’t handled this as well as they should have. They originally told Mr R(1) that they were not going to refund him £800, however following a full investigation they agreed to a refund. Barclays also failed to block a card associated with the account when it ought to, and while there was no financial loss to Mr R(1) and Mr R(2) this added to the overall distress. To compensate Mr R(1) and Mr R(2) for the distress and inconvenience Barclays’ errors caused Barclays originally offered £300 – which it increased to £400 total after the complaint came to our service. Mr R(1) believes £1,000- £1500 would be more appropriate considering the impact this had on him. Our investigator concluded that £400 was fair in the circumstances. As Mr R(1) disagrees this complaint 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. Having done so, I’m intending to reach the same conclusions as our Investigator and for materially the same reasons. I’ll explain why. Before I set out my thoughts, I want to acknowledge that I have summarised this complaint briefly and in less detail than has been provided. I’ve focused on what I think is the heart of the matter. While I may not comment on every point raised, I have considered it. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. Our rules allow me to do this and reflect the fact that we are an informal service and a free alternative for consumers to the courts. I think it will also be helpful for me to explain our approach to compensation. Unlike the courts our awards for compensation are not punitive. Instead, our aim is as much as

-- 1 of 3 --

possible to try and put the consumer back in the position they would have been in had the error not occurred. Mr R(1) has also raised concerns about Barclays’ wider business practices and the impact this might have on other customers. While I understand Mr R(1)’s concern, that is outside the scope of this complaint as I’m limited to commenting on the impact of Barclays’ actions on Mr R(1) and Mr R(2) Mr R(1) has referenced having less time at work – and has evidenced this with a message dated 13 August 2025 where it appears to have been agreed that he worked from home. It appears that his work rota was changed to accommodate how unwell Mr R(1) was. And in the messages, he refences this complaint. I’ve also noted that when Barclays did speak to Mr R(1) to explain the £800 refund, on 13 August 2025 he refences a medical condition that has flared up and the stress this has caused him. He has also told our service that he was in physical pain for four days as a result of this condition (after Barclays declined his claim on 8 August 2025). So, I’m persuaded that Barclays’ poor handling of his complaint contributed to him having to change his work pattern. Mr R(1)’s comments around the physical impact this had on him is also something I’ve taken into consideration when deciding if the amount of compensation is fair. Mr R(1) has repeatedly mentioned how stressful he found being without the funds. And I can see that the £800 withdrawal drained his account, and this is something I’ve considered. However, I can see that Mr R(1) received a refund relatively quickly. The Payment Service Regulations 2017 set out the time limits payment service providers such as Barclays have to respond to complaints. These are 15 business days after the day on which they received the complaint which can be extended to 35 business days. And I can see that Mr R(1) received a refund within these time limits. Mr R(1) has said that “a central issue in my complaint is that I was repeatedly and confidently told that my debit card and PIN had been used to withdraw the £800. This information was presented as verified, visible on Barclays’ systems, and capable of withstanding Ombudsman scrutiny”. And he has repeatedly referenced that multiple factual inaccuracies were presented to him as certainty. And that the impact this had on him – especially considering his profession (which involves trust and public confidence). I’ve listened in full to the calls Mr R(1) had with Barclays where he was told the £800 wouldn’t be refunded. (Mr R(1) spoke to the same Barclays’ advisor on 8 August 2025, at 3pm and 4.30pm). Having done so, I can see that he was told that his card and PIN were used to complete the £800 withdrawal and that it wouldn’t be refunded to him. I appreciate that Mr R(1) found this call distressing and that he repeatedly reiterated that he didn’t complete the transaction. As the call continued, he highlighted the distance and timings between two transactions. Mr R(1) also highlighted how important this money was to him. During the call I found the Barclays adviser to be professional and polite throughout and willing to answer Mr R’s questions. Barclays provided Mr R(1) with incorrect information during the call and, after listening to the call, I’m satisfied that frustrated Mr R(1). Barclays spoke to Mr R(1) five days later and explained that they are now refunding the transaction. Information had been missed, and they were satisfied that Mr R(1)’s card and PIN had not been used to complete the transaction. The adviser apologised repeatedly for the mistake during the call which Mr R(1) accepted while stating that it was hard for him to do so. Mr R(1) highlighted the impact that this had on him. He referenced having a sleepless night, feeling deflated and stressed and how important that amount of money was to him. He also said that he felt his integrity had been questioned which he took especially personally considering his profession. The call ended with the advisor offering £250 compensation

-- 2 of 3 --

which Mr R(1) declined and the advisor saying she would take Mr R(1)’s complaint away to management. He received a subsequent call back from Barclays where it was explained how the complaint was investigated and increased offer of compensation totalling £300 was made. I’ve also noted that there was a delay in cancelling one of the debit cards associated with the account once the second instance of fraud was reported. Fortunately, the account wasn’t compromised further because of this. But I understand that this added to the distress of the overall situation. And is one of the things I’ve taken into account. When a disputed transaction occurs, this is already an upsetting experience for the consumer, and will inevitable inconvenience the consumer. It will also take the business time to investigate. That being said, I can see that Mr R(1) spent a considerable amount of time complaining to Barclays. And I’m satisfied that its actions contributed to his distress to a level that warrants compensation. I do want to acknowledge that in part I am being asked to put a monetary figure on distress. And that is inherently unsatisfactory as a monetary figure won’t undo the impact this had on Mr R(1) and Mr R(2), for example the sleepless night and stress Mr R(1) described. That being said, our service has an approach to compensation, which as I mentioned above is not intended to be punitive. Taking into account the guidance to compensation on our website and the impact of Barclays’ errors, I’m satisfied the £400 Barclays offered for the distress and inconvenience its errors caused is fair and reasonable. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct Barclays Bank UK PLC to pay £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R(1) and Mr R(2) to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Sureeni Weerasinghe Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --