Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6106455

The complaint Mr A complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC won’t refund the money he says he’s lost to a scam. What happened On 2 September 2025, Mr A paid a company I’ll refer to as ‘M’ £2,170 for a used vehicle (plus delivery). The vehicle was delivered to Mr A later than he expected it to be and it arrived without a key, and in a non-roadworthy condition. Mr A raised a scam claim with Barclays. Barclays thought the matter was a civil dispute rather than a scam, and so declined to refund Mr A. It said that Mr A received the item he paid for, even if he’s not happy with it. Mr A complained about Barclays’ decision, then referred his complaint to our Service when the bank maintained its stance. Our investigator didn’t uphold Mr A’s complaint. On balance, they agreed this was likely a civil dispute. Mr A appealed the investigator’s outcome, and his complaint has now been passed to me to decide. 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. It’s not in dispute that Mr A authorised the disputed payment. That means the starting position is that he’s liable for it. In line with the Payment Services Regulations, firms are expected to process authorised payment instructions without undue delay. However, Mr A says he made the payment as part of an Authorised Push Payment (‘APP’) scam. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK are bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (‘FPS’) reimbursement rules. Under these rules, most victims of APP scams should be reimbursed. To decide whether Barclays should refund Mr A’s payment, I’ve therefore considered whether this issue meets the reimbursement rules’ definition of an APP scam: “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” Barclays has argued this matter is a private civil dispute rather than a scam. Such disputes – defined as “A dispute between a consumer and payee which is a private matter between

-- 1 of 2 --

them for resolution in the civil courts, rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty” – aren’t covered by the reimbursement rules. I appreciate Mr A’s strength of feeling on this matter and I can understand why he feels he has been scammed if the used vehicle he’s received has been delivered to him in an unroadworthy condition. But the disputed payment went to the person he intended to pay. And, having carefully weighed up all the available evidence, I’m not persuaded on balance that there was a deception or mismatch regarding the payment purpose. I say this because Mr A wasn’t tricked into making a payment to a scammer that had no intention of delivering the goods he was paying for. Mr A intended to purchase a used vehicle with the disputed payment, and have it delivered to him. And it seems clear that M also intended the disputed payment to purchase a used vehicle and pay for delivery. Mr A has paid for, and received, a used vehicle, and it was delivered to him. But he is not satisfied with the quality of the vehicle. I can see why Mr A is unhappy with the situation he’s in but, in the circumstances, I don’t think it was unfair for Barclays to reject Mr A’s claim under the FPS reimbursement rules. And I don’t think there is any other reason why the bank should refund any financial loss. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Kyley Hanson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --