Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6320432

The complaint Miss M complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC (‘Barclays’) won’t reimburse the funds she lost when she paid money to what she now believes was a scam. What happened In 2022 Miss M was in need of a solicitor. She found a solicitor firm on the Law Society website and got in touch with them. She spoke to a solicitor I’ll call “G”, who was also a director of the firm, and was sent documents including a client care letter, questionnaires and an agreement that set out the general services that would be provided including the fixed cost. Miss M said she checked reviews of the firm on a well-known review website and entered into an agreement with the solicitor to provide her with legal services and representation. Miss M was asked to pay the fee upfront and on 13 July 2022 she made three payments of £2,000 from her bank account with Barclays to a bank account in the name of the firm. As I understand it, by December 2022 Miss M hadn’t got the outcome she was hoping for in the legal matter she’d instructed G to help her with. Miss M says that G lied to her and took advantage of her situation when he first persuaded her to instruct him to help her and it was only later that she was told she couldn’t get her money back or clear her name. Miss M has said she received no service or advice from G and despite asking for a refund, hasn’t received her money back – though Miss M received £1,045.86 towards her costs through legal aid in February 2023. Miss M says she has been lied to, scammed and defrauded by G. Miss M said she first spoke to Barclays in February 2023 and at the time she was advised to pursue the matter through small claims court – though Miss M didn’t because of the potential costs involved and risk of not being successful. Having received advice, Miss M reported the matter back to Barclays at the end of May 2025. Miss M said Barclays didn’t take any action at the time of the payments and it should have done because she’d never sent £6,000 from her account before and had never paid a solicitor before. Barclays gave Miss M an outcome, saying that what had happened was not a scam, it was a civil dispute between her and a legitimate firm. Miss M was unhappy with the outcome and with the customer service provided by Barclays and raised a complaint. Barclays issued a final response to the complaint and apologised for the way Miss M had been spoken to in a phone call she’d had with it. But it still felt the matter was a civil dispute, so it didn’t reimburse Miss M. Unhappy with Barclays’ response, Miss M brought her complaint to our Service. In its submissions to our Service, Barclays made an offer of £100 compensation for poor customer service it provided during one of the calls it had with Miss M. Miss M didn’t accept this offer so one of our Investigators looked into the complaint. The Investigator said Barclays didn’t need to reimburse Miss M under the relevant reimbursement scheme because based on the available evidence, she wasn’t persuaded that Miss M has been the

-- 1 of 8 --

victim of a scam. She also concluded that Barclays’ offer of compensation for poor customer service was fair and reasonable. Miss M didn’t agree with the outcome and reiterated that what happened was a scam and that Barclays didn’t do anything at the time of the payments to protect her when it should have done. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved informally, it has been passed to me to make a decision. I sent Miss M and Barclays a provisional decision on 21 April 2026, setting out why I intent to not uphold the complaint, but only in respect of the £100 offered by Barclays. In my provisional decision I said the following: “It’s my role to consider whether Barclays is responsible for Miss M’s losses. I know it will be disappointing for Miss M, but having considered everything carefully I am not recommending that Barclays reimburse her here. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a bank is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations (in this case the 2017 regulations) and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. As Miss M authorised the payments, there are a limited number of circumstances in which Barclays would be liable to refund her, namely that she’s been the victim of an authorised push payment (‘APP’) scam. Our Investigator explained why she didn’t think Miss M had been the victim of an APP scam. I agree with our Investigator and I’ll explain why. The CRM Code Barclays was a signatory to the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code (‘CRM Code’). Under this code, the starting principle is that a firm should reimburse a customer who is the victim of an APP scam, except in limited circumstances. But the CRM Code only applies if the definition of an APP scam as set out in it, is met. I have considered whether Miss M’s claim falls within the scope of the CRM Code, which defines an APP scam as: “… a transfer of funds executed across Faster Payments…where…The Customer transferred funds to another person for what they believed were legitimate purposes but which were in fact fraudulent”. The CRM code also specifically excludes private civil disputes: “…such as where a Customer has paid a legitimate supplier for goods, services, or digital content but has not received them, they are defective in some way, or the customer is otherwise dissatisfied with the supplier” I understand Miss M had never had to instruct a solicitor before and was under pressure to get one quickly because of a stressful and upsetting situation. Miss M says that the solicitor told her they could clear her name, help her through the situation she was in and help get her money back. As I understand it however, the matter went to court and Miss M had to accept a court order and outcome that she didn’t agree with. Miss M says that the solicitor lied to her about what he could do for her, didn’t do what he said he would do and was only interested in taking her money upfront, despite knowing she was vulnerable at the time. Miss

-- 2 of 8 --

M has also made allegations about the solicitor, such that he may be an alcoholic and that he said Miss M’s family members could be present during meetings but that didn’t happen. I don’t have the power to speak to or conduct an investigation into the solicitor but part of what is required here is to establish the intent of the person accused of this fraud about the purpose of Miss M’s payments. To do this, I have to rely on the information and evidence that is available to me. Based on the information Miss M and Barclays have provided to me, Miss M says she found the solicitor on the Law Society website – a trusted and appropriate place to find a legitimate solicitor firm. Miss M also researched the solicitor online and could see plenty of good reviews. Miss M had a conference call with the solicitor, received a client agreement along with other paperwork and questionnaires. Miss M also told Barclays that the solicitor started talking to the police on her behalf and advised her not to sign anything she may be asked to sign (by her accusers or the police). Miss M says she was persuaded to instruct the solicitor having had the call and emails with him, and being told they could help clear her name and help her through the situation. Miss M had to pay the fees upfront and also provided them with proof of identity and address. All of this is what I would generally expect from a genuine solicitor firm. It’s very common, and often expected, to pay solicitor fees upfront. It seems they took action fairly quickly to speak to the police on Miss M’s behalf and advised her not to agree to anything put forward to her. I would expect a client to receive a client agreement/contract and the other paperwork that Miss M was sent. Unfortunately, I don’t know exactly what was discussed between Miss M and the solicitor. I don’t doubt what Miss M has said about what she was told by the solicitor about what they could do for her. But no one can guarantee the outcome of a court case or legal action. And not achieving the outcome hoped for doesn’t mean the solicitor hasn’t done what they intended to achieve or has acted fraudulently. I need to consider whether the purpose Miss M intended for the payments and the solicitor’s intended purposes for the payments were broadly aligned and then, if they weren’t, whether this was the result of dishonest deception on the part of the solicitor. The broad purpose of Miss M’s payments was to pay for services in relation to a legal matter. I’m not satisfied the evidence I’ve seen shows that G or the firm had different purposes in mind for the payments, or that Miss M’s, and the solicitors’ purposes for the payments weren’t broadly aligned or that the solicitor’s purpose for the payments was fraudulent. The evidence I’ve been provided with suggests that G was a legitimate solicitor. The firm is a limited company registered with Companies House and has been trading since March 2021. It’s also a recognised legal practice company by the Law Society and is regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’) and has been since May 2021. The SRA also shows that the firm has no disciplinary or regulatory decisions currently published about it. Similarly, G is the director of the firm, as per Companies House records and is also personally authorised by the SRA to practice as a solicitor and has been since 2003. He also has no disciplinary or regulatory decisions currently published by the SRA about him. So the company and the solicitor are both duly registered and authorised by the relevant authorities and have been for some time. It’s not typical for a fraudster to go to such lengths to be authorised and regulated for several years, and it would be a huge risk for a legitimate solicitor to act fraudulently and risk losing their authority to practice. Based on what I’ve been able to review, there aren’t any of the usual common signs of a scam I’d expect to see. The company website is professional and sets out the services it

-- 3 of 8 --

provides, it shows relevant authorisation numbers, it has a complaints policy, pricing information and terms of business. The information Miss M was provided included a professional looking agreement, questionnaires, consent documents, cost information and information about recovering defence costs. As explained above, all of these are elements I would expect to see from a legitimate solicitor’s firm. I have received confidential information from the bank that received Miss M’s money, that I can’t share due to data protection laws. But the bank that received Miss M’s money confirmed that it hasn’t received any other fraud reports in relation to the account paid. I also haven’t been able to find any information in the public domain that would suggest either G or the firm weren’t, and aren’t currently, genuine and acting legitimately. The vast majority of online reviews of the service provided by the firm and G are positive. I was only able to find one independent negative review and that was about the professionalism of the service provided and it didn’t allege that either the firm or G weren’t legitimate. As I understand it there is a complaints mechanism in place to raise concerns about solicitor firms with the appropriate authorities, though Miss M has said she is out of time to raise a complaint about the solicitor. Unfortunately, I am limited to only investigating whether Barclays has acted fairly and reasonably. I understand how strongly Miss M feels about the matter and how upsetting the whole situation has been for her. I don’t know the details of the legal matter, what was expected of G or what the outcome of the matter was. And I’m not saying Miss M doesn’t have genuine grounds to be unhappy about the actions of G, or his professionalism, if he didn’t provide the service that was expected. But based on the evidence I’ve been provided, on balance, I think this is a dispute between Miss M and a legitimate supplier of services that she is dissatisfied with. In other words, a private civil dispute, rather than an APP scam. Sincerely, I’m sorry for the position Miss M has found herself in. I appreciate that she has paid a lot of money and that she feels let down by the solicitor and by her bank. But I can only look at Barclays’ responsibilities here and for the reasons I’ve explained, having carefully considered all the evidence provided to me, I’m not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the solicitor has acted fraudulently. So I don’t think it would be fair to hold Barclays responsible for the money Miss M sent to the firm and I consider Barclays acted fairly when it didn’t reimburse Miss M under the CRM Code. Should Barclays have done anything else to prevent the scam? Outside of the CRM Code, Barclays should be on the lookout for, and protect its customers from, potentially falling victim to fraud or scams. This includes monitoring accounts and identifying suspicious activity that appears out of character. Where potential fraud is identified, I would expect Barclays to intervene and attempt to prevent the losses for the customer. Having reviewed Miss M’s usual account activity for the six months before the disputed payments, I do think the size and frequency of the three payments, (£6,000 within a few minutes) was unusual and out of character. But even if Barclays had spoken to Miss M at the point of any of the payments, I don’t think either Barclays or Miss M would have likely uncovered sufficient cause for concern about the solicitor that Miss M would have chosen not to proceed. I say this because, at the time Miss M believed the solicitor to be genuine, she found him on the Law Society Website, the solicitor was authorised and there was nothing in the public domain that would have suggested Miss M was at risk of financial harm by making the payments she did. Miss M was also in need of the services she was paying

-- 4 of 8 --

for. So I can’t fairly say Barclays could’ve prevented Miss M’s funds from being sent if it had intervened at the time of the payments. Recovery of funds Barclays didn’t try to recover Miss M’s funds when she reported the matter to it. But I would only have expected Barclays to have attempted to recover the funds from the bank that received them, if it thought Miss M was the victim of a scam. Because I’ve come to the conclusion that what happened wasn’t an APP scam, I can’t hold Barclays liable to reimburse Miss M for not attempting to recover the funds from the recipient bank accounts when she raised the claim. Compensation Miss M raised points to Barclays about how she’d been treated when she raised the claim and when she was provided with the outcome. Miss M said she’d been spoken to rudely by Barclays when speaking to them about her claim, and in the outcome call she was talked over and all of her concerns were dismissed, as were her requests to receive the outcome in writing. When the complaint was brought to our service, Miss M said she felt harassed by Barclays due to her low bank account, gender, race and religion. After the complaint was referred to our service, Barclays made an offer of £100 compensation. This was to acknowledge and apologise for how Miss M was spoken to during the phone call when the outcome of her claim was discussed. I’m sorry to hear that Miss M felt she was harassed by Barclays because of her personal circumstances. I’ve been able to listen to phone call recordings where Miss M discussed the scam and the outcome of her claim with Barclays. Having listened to the calls, I do agree that the calls could have gone better – particularly the call in which Miss M was given the outcome of her scam claim. Barclays could certainly have provided better customer service. But having considered all the available evidence, I haven’t seen anything that suggests Barclays treated Miss M differently to anyone else specifically because of her personal circumstances. But particularly in the scam outcome call, the Barclays representative did interrupt Ms M several times, didn’t always listen to what Miss M was saying and at times raised her voice. And I appreciate why this caused Miss M upset, particularly when she didn’t want to receive a phone call. But based on all the evidence I’ve considered, I think the £100 offered in relation to the customer service provided when dealing with Miss M’s claim, is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and is in line with what I might have recommended if it hadn’t already been offered. This means I’m upholding the complaint in Miss M’s favour, but I’m doing so only to instruct Barclays to pay the £100 to Miss M that it has already offered to pay. I know this will be a disappointing outcome for Miss M, and I’m sorry to have to deliver this news to her. But for the reasons explained, in my judgment, this is a fair and reasonable outcome in the circumstances of the complaint. Putting things right I’m provisionally minded to uphold this complaint. Barclays Bank UK PLC should pay Miss M: • £100 compensation My provisional decision

-- 5 of 8 --

For the reasons set out above, my provisional decision is to uphold this complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. This is subject to any comments or further evidence either Miss M or Barclays Bank UK PLC. may wish to make.” I said I’d consider anything further Miss M and Barclays submitted following the provisional decision. Responses to my provisional decision Barclays has confirmed it accepts the outcome of my provisional decision. Miss M has confirmed that she does not agree with the outcome reached in my provisional decision and has asked that her complaint is reconsidered. Miss M sent an email she received from the solicitor as further evidence to support her complaint. Miss M has also said: • She was not offered the package the solicitor outlined in the email that Miss M has sent to me. The solicitor also later backtracked and said he hadn’t advised her not to sign a form that she’d been presented with. • The solicitor told her in a video meeting in mid-July 2022 that he would clear her name and her money would be returned back to her and that’s why she paid him. If he’d told her he could not clear her name, would not offer her legal advice, answer her calls or emails and that she would not be receiving her money back, she wouldn’t have instructed the solicitor. • This was happening during the COVID-19 pandemic so there were restrictions in place preventing her from getting a legitimate lawyer and that she wouldn’t have lost this money if the solicitor hadn’t deceived her. • She had never spent £6,000 from her account in one go before and Barclays should have detected this was fraud and taken action. Barclays has a duty of care to its customers, but it didn’t ask her any security questions before making the payments and failed to detect and protect her from fraud. • The £100 compensation does not cover a year’s rent or the money lost and she will only accept a minimum of £2,000 compensation for the damage caused to her health, financial loss and reputation. 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 appreciate the time Miss M has taken to reply to my provisional decision with the points she’s raised and the additional evidence she’s sent for me to consider. I have carefully considered the additional submissions provided, but they don’t change my decision. Most of the points raised are not new and were considered when I reached my provisional decision. The additional evidence Miss M has provided doesn’t change my decision either. The additional evidence sent to me is an email sent by the solicitor to Miss M before she made her payments. In summary it outlines that they had spoken about the matter, confirms some of the advice he’d already provided and then gave information about the package of services, along with costs, available to Miss M.

-- 6 of 8 --

I understand the point Miss M is making. From what Miss M has said, it sounds like the solicitor didn’t provide the level of service and advice she expected from him and it’s my understanding she didn’t get the result of the of the legal matter she believed the solicitor could achieve for her. But not receiving the services expected, or being unhappy with the service (or lack of service) received doesn’t mean the solicitor wasn’t legitimate or that he was acting fraudulently. I explained in my provisional decision that I’m not able to speak to the solicitor directly or investigate him or his firm. This means I can’t get the solicitor’s side of things or ask him to prove what advice and services he did provide. I can only assess what happened based on the information and evidence that is available to me. And I can only look into Barclays’ actions and whether it was fair for it to decline Miss M’s fraud claim, based on the information available to Barclays. The reason Barclays didn’t uphold Miss M’s claim is because it thought what had happened was a dispute between Miss M and a legitimate solicitor, not an APP scam. I accept that Miss M may not have received what she was expecting from the solicitor. And as mentioned in my provisional decision, I’m not saying Miss M doesn’t have genuine grounds to be unhappy about the actions of the solicitor, his conduct or his professionalism, if he didn’t provide the services that she was expecting. Miss M may be able to raise her concerns about the solicitor’s conduct with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. But in my provisional decision I explained why the evidence I’ve reviewed points toward the solicitor being legitimate. And for the same reasons I gave in my provisional decision, on balance, I’m still not persuaded that the solicitor intended to fraudulently deceive Miss M, and therefore I’m not persuaded that what happened was an APP scam. I explained in my provisional decision that Barclays should have been suspicious of the payments because of their value and frequency. They did look out of character when compared to Miss M’s usual account activity. But I also explained that if Barclays had spoken to Miss M at the time of the payments I don’t think either Barclays or Miss M would have discovered anything that would have prevented Miss M from making the payments. I’m sure Miss M would have been honest with Barclays about the purpose of the payments she was making. And the information available to Barclays at the time would have shown that the solicitor was authorised and regulated, Miss M had found them herself on the Law Society website, the firm was a genuine registered company, Miss M had spoken to the solicitor, received expected documentation including an agreement and was paying a set fee upfront. There was nothing suspicious about the solicitor or his firm at the time. So even if Barclays had stopped the payments and asked Miss M questions at the time, I don’t think it would have prevented the payments from being made. Regarding the £100 compensation that has been offered by Barclays, and that I have recommended be paid, I appreciate that it’s a modest amount. I know it’s not anywhere near the amount Miss M paid the solicitor and that she is claiming for. But the compensation isn’t related to Barclays’ decision not to reimburse her or for not taking any action at the time of the payments. The compensation is in recognition of poor customer service when Barclays spoke to Miss M about her claim and the outcome of it. Having listened to the phone calls, I agree that Barclays could have provided better customer service in those calls, but I think £100 is fair and reasonable compensation for the poor customer service provided in those calls. I’m sorry to disappoint Miss M and I know the entire matter has been upsetting, stressful and frustrating for her. But for the reasons explained above, I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that persuades me, on balance, that the solicitor intended to defraud Miss M when she made the payments to his firm. As such, for the same reasons given in my provisional decision I don’t think it would be fair to hold Barclays responsible for the money Miss M sent to the firm

-- 7 of 8 --

and I consider Barclays acted fairly when it didn’t reimburse Miss M under the CRM Code or otherwise. I also think that £100 is fair compensation for the customer service provided by Barclays. This means I’m upholding the complaint in Miss M’s favour, but I’m doing so only to instruct Barclays to pay the £100 to Miss M that it has already offered to pay. Putting things right I uphold this complaint. Barclays Bank UK PLC should pay Miss M: • £100 compensation My final decision For the reasons set out above, I uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Mike Southgate Ombudsman

-- 8 of 8 --