Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-5972652

The complaint Mr K and Mrs K complain that Barclays Bank UK PLC are unhappy with the level of compensation after money was taken by a third-party from their account. The background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, if there’s a submission I’ve not addressed; it isn’t because I’ve ignored the point. It’s simply because my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues in this complaint – that being whether Barclays should pay more compensation to Mr and Mrs K’s here. For ease, I’ll refer to Mr K in the 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 agree with the conclusions reached by our Investigator, and for largely the same reasons. I’ve read and considered the whole file. But I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. Both sides accept that it wasn’t Mr K who made the disputed payments (£2,532) and that amount has now been refunded. The remaining issue appears to be the way Barclays handled the claim, and that Mr K feels the £200 compensation isn’t sufficient. Our Investigator felt the £200 was fair here and that Barclays should add 8% simple interest per year to the award here. Barclays agreed. Mr K disagreed and have asked for £1,500. In summary, he says he spent an excessive amount of time on the phone to Barclays when reporting the first fraudulent payments and then having to call again when Barclays allowed further payments to leave the account. Mr K says he’s lost trust in Barclays which compelled him to keep a block on the account and look to move banks. Mr K also disagrees with the 8% interest awarded by our Investigator. He thinks interest should be added to the total amount that was lost from the Barclays account and the other bank account where the fraudulent payments were sent to. I’ve carefully considered all of the evidence that Mr K has submitted here and the reasons for wanting more compensation. Firstly, there will always be an element of distress and inconvenience involved in reporting fraudulent transactions on an account. I note this took a long time when Mr K first reported the fraud which I’m sure was inconvenient, as he was on holiday. But ultimately the responsibility for Mr K having to deal with this issue whilst on holiday was the scammer who stole Mrs K’s phone. Barclays refunded all the payments that were made from its account. Which was reasonable. New debit cards were then issued but because Mr K was away he couldn’t activate these. Mr K also asked for a new credit card to be sent out so that limited their options when looking to spend money whilst on holiday.

-- 1 of 2 --

I note that Barclays did allow further payments to be made from the account, for which it has apologised after Mrs K’s device wasn’t deregistered from the online account. As a result, Mr K decided to leave the blocks on the account which was a decision taken by him. So, although I do understand why he decided to leave the blocks on, that decision did mean that access to money was further limited and for a longer period until he returned home and opened an account somewhere else. But Mr K did have online access via his device as it was still in his possession. There was another of Mr K’s accounts involved in the fraudulent payments here. That bank also provided a refund of the loss. But Mr K is unhappy that Barclays asked him to also ask the other bank for a refund which meant a further four-week delay. Overall, I don’t think Barclays treated Mr K unreasonably here as the payments made from the other bank was the point of loss (the fraudster sending the money to accounts outside Mr K’s control). But I can’t reasonably say to Barclays that the time the other bank took to provide its refund was the fault of Barclays. Nor can I ask Barclays to add further interest to the refund provided by the other bank. Overall, I agree with our Investigator that £200 in compensation is reasonable here and Barclays should add 8% simple interest per year on the amount that it has already refunded to Mr K. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. Barclays Bank Uk Plc must pay Mr and Mrs K £200 in total in compensation and add 8% simple interest per year from the date of the payments to the date of settlement to the refund of the fraudulent payments that it has already paid Mr and Mrs K. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Mark Dobson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --