Barclays Bank UK Plc · DRN-6232959

The complaint Mr P complain that Barclays Bank UK Plc won’t refund the money he says he lost to a scam. What happened Mr P was looking to have some work done on his property. He’d sought out a few quotes but also received a suggestion to contact a builder who was working on a property near a friend’s house. I’ll call this builder G. G quoted £18,000 for the works Mr P had requested, which was cheaper than other quotes Mr P had received. But G told Mr P he could source materials at a low price and that he wanted to use Mr P’s property as a showcase for his work, he also said he had been low on work for months. Mr P, sympathetic to what G had said, agreed to go ahead with the works. After G began work, he made suggestions to expand the project, so that it became a complete renovation of Mr P’s home. Mr P has said G convinced him this was the best way to do the work, so he agreed to these changes to the scope of the project. Over a period of around a month Mr P made faster payments of over £40,000 to G for materials and labour, he’s said he also made some cash payments to G. But Mr P says only limited work was done, and not to a good standard, and G began to make excuses as to why he could not carry on the work. After a period where he was unreachable, G eventually told Mr P that his mother had died and so he had gone back to his home country, but that now his UK accounts were frozen and so he’d need more money to return to the UK and complete the work. Mr P made a series of small payments for expenses, flights, and to help G with renewing his passport. But G did not return to complete the work, and has since ceased contact with Mr P. Mr P has since made contact with other individuals who have had a similar experience with G, and he believes he has been the victim of a scam and that G manipulated him into making payments when he never intended to carry out the work that was agreed. Mr P reported G to Action Fraud, and also reported the matter to Barclays, saying he had been the victim of a scam. Barclays looked into what had happened, but said Mr P wasn’t eligible for a refund as it said this was a private civil dispute between Mr P and G. Unhappy with Barclays’ response, Mr P brought his complaint to this service and one of our investigators looked into things. But they agreed with Barclays that, based on what we currently know, this was most likely a civil dispute, and so Mr P was not entitled to a refund of the payments he had made. Mr P remained unhappy, he maintains that he has been the victim of a scam. As the case could not be resolved informally, it’s 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

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so and 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 P 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 P and G 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: • 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 consider what has happened here as an APP scam, I would need to be satisfied that it involves criminal deception. The evidence for this would therefore need to be convincing. Mr P paid G, and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he was not the person he intended to pay. So, Mr P cannot be said to have paid a recipient he did not intend to pay, as per the definition above. Mr P’s purpose for the payments was for labour and materials relating to work being done on his property, and while it is clear that there is some dispute about the quality and extent of the work done, all the evidence I have seen demonstrates to me that G did do some of the agreed work. And having thought very carefully about all that Mr P has said, and about the evidence provided by all parties to this complaint, I’m not persuaded that I can safely say with any certainty, based on what I know and what the evidence shows, that G set out with an intent to defraud Mr P, or did not intend to fulfil the purpose agreed with Mr P. I say this for the following reasons: - G was operating as a properly registered limited company at the time of these payments, it has now been dissolved, but that does not automatically mean it was not operating legitimately. - Some work was carried out, and some materials were delivered.

-- 2 of 3 --

- While there were issues that Mr P was unhappy with regarding the quality and extent of the work, it seems that G continued to correspond with Mr P even when he had left the country, and initially seemed willing to try and put things right, which is not what we would usually expect to see from a fraudster. - And the messages Mr P exchanged with G do appear to show a breakdown in the relationship as things progressed and G was unable to complete the agreed works. I can’t discount that this may have contributed to G ultimately ceasing contact with Mr P and not finishing the work. - While I acknowledge that other people seem to have had a similar experience with G, I am also conscious that Action Fraud has declined to pursue any investigation into G’s activities. I acknowledge that G ultimately did not provide the full services agreed, but there are many reasons, other than fraud, why a legitimate contractor may be unable to provide the services they have promised. A business may act unprofessionally but still be carrying out legitimate business, or it may get into financial trouble or personal difficulties and be unable to meet its obligations to customers. And this service isn’t in a position to forensically analyse G’s actions here; we must consider the evidence that is before us. And, in doing so, I’ve not seen persuasive evidence at this time to show that G set out to defraud Mr P. I know this will be a huge disappointment to Mr P. I appreciate how strongly he feels about this case, and that what has happened here has had a significant impact on him. But for the reasons I’ve explained above, I do not consider that it was unreasonable for Barclays to decline Mr P’s claim under the relevant reimbursement rules. My final decision I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Sophie Mitchell Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --