Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6232539

The complaint Mr O complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC did not reimburse the funds he says he lost to a scam. What happened Mr O is the director of a company that provides healthcare services. He was in need of some training for his staff and was introduced to a training company I’ll refer to as ‘C’ by a friend of his. On C’s direction, Mr O paid a total of £3,000 to a personal account on 12 and 13 September 2025 from his Barclays account. He also paid C’s business account directly from a separate current account he held with a third-party provider. However, Mr O says that C never provided the training and instead C continued to move back the date of the training again and again. While Mr O did receive a partial reimbursement of £1,000 from C on 16 September 2025, he did not get back the remainder of his funds. Mr O raised a scam claim with Barclays in November 2025, and they issued a final response letter in which they explained this was a civil dispute and not a scam. Mr O disagreed and referred the complaint to our service. Our Investigator looked into the complaint and agreed that this did not meet the bar of a scam and instead agreed it was a civil dispute. Mr O continued to disagree and as an informal agreement could not be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final 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. I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. 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 O but, whilst I’m sorry to hear of what’s happened, I don’t think I can fairly hold Barclays liable for his loss. When considering what is fair and reasonable in this case, I’ve thought about the relevant rules that were in place at the time these 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 O and C 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:

-- 1 of 2 --

• 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 agree this is an APP scam, I would need to be satisfied that it involves criminal deception. The evidence for this would therefore need to be convincing. However, I don’t think I have seen such evidence. Mr O has been able to provide some screenshots of conversations with C, but these are not full conversations and don’t clearly reflect what he has said happened. They do not show that C kept cancelling the training and delaying repayment to Mr O. Instead, some of the chats appear to be with a third party with no clear connection to C that I can find. Mr O also received reimbursement of £1,000 on 16 September 2025, and this is unusual for a scam. Ordinarily, a scammer would not provide such a refund unless they were trying to induce the victim into making more payments, but I cannot see that is the case here. Again, there is no evidence showing why this amount was refunded to Mr O and what the agreement was around any rescheduling issues. I have also considered that Mr O was asked to pay a personal account as well as C’s business account. I have reviewed the receiving bank statements for the personal account. While I cannot reveal what these show due to data protection issues, I can see that the funds were used in the way I would have expected them to, based on Mr O asking for training services from C. Because of this. I cannot agree that the receiving bank statements indicate Mr C was the victim of an APP scam. Having carefully considered everything available to me, I cannot agree that the information on file supports Mr O’s assertion that C has scammed him. The lack of evidence around what his agreement was with C and why the training was not fulfilled, as well as the refund of £1,000 from C and the information on the receiving bank statements all indicate to me that this is more likely a civil dispute and not a case of criminal fraud. With this in mind, I think Barclays acted reasonably when it did not reimburse Mr O with the remaining £2,000. My final decision I do not uphold Mr O’s complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Rebecca Norris Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --