Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-2587478

The complaint Mr G complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC closed his bank account and won’t return money to him. He also complains that the bank placed a fraud marker against his name causing serious repercussions for him. What happened Mr G had a current account and a savings account with Barclays. On 17 May 2019 £3,200 was paid into Mr G’s current account. Mr G immediately transferred £2,000 into his savings account, withdrew some of the cash and made several card payments. On 28 May 2019, Barclays received notification for another bank that the £3,200 Mr G had received into his account was fraudulent. Barclays asked Mr G about the funds and asked him for proof of entitlement to the £3,200. Mr G told the bank that he’d sold some alloy wheels and provided a screen shot of the account of the person who’d bought the wheels. Mr G explained that the person who bought the wheels had visited his home address and transferred the money on his doorstep. And then left with the wheels. Mr G said he hadn’t had any further contact with the buyer. Barclays weren’t happy with Mr G’s explanation. So, on 6 June 2019, the bank closed Mr G’s account and returned the remaining money back to the sending bank. And placed a fraud marker against Mr G’s name with CIFAS, the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System. Mr G complained to the bank. He said he hadn’t done anything wrong and was now out of pocket and without his goods. He said the marker was causing him a great deal of trouble and upset because it was making it difficult for him to open another bank account. Barclays said it hadn’t done anything wrong. In summary, Barclays said they’d followed the terms and conditions of the account. And said they’d fairly loaded him to the National Fraud Database. Unhappy with this response Mr G brought his complaint to our service. One of our investigator’s looked into Mr G’s complaint. He asked Mr G for more information about the sale of the alloys. But Mr G didn’t provide anything. Barclays also told the investigator that they’d received an indemnity for the return of the remaining fraudulent funds. After reviewing all the information, the investigator didn’t uphold Mr G’s complaint. He thought the bank had acted fairly in returning the money and recording the marker. Mr G disagreed. He wants the bank to remove the marker and give him back the money which was paid into his account. As no agreement could be reached the matter has come 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

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’ve first considered whether Barclays acted fairly when it closed Mr G’s accounts. Mr G has pointed out that he has been a loyal customer of Barclays for many years and that the closure of his accounts has caused him a lot of problems and stress. I’m sorry that what’s happened has caused Mr G trouble and upset. But it’s generally for banks to decide whether or not they want to provide, or to continue to provide, banking facilities to any particular customer. Unless there’s a very good reason to do so, this service won’t usually say that a bank must keep customer or require it to compensate a customer who has had their account closed. I’ve considered whether Barclays acted fairly in closing Mr G’s accounts. I’ve looked at the terms and conditions of his accounts and I’m satisfied they did. The terms and conditions outline that the bank can close a customer’s account with two months’ notice, and in certain circumstances they can close an account immediately. In this case Barclays closed Mr G’s account without notice. For Barclays to act fairly here they needed to meet the criteria to apply their terms for immediate closure – and having looked at these terms and all the evidence I’m satisfied that the bank has applied the terms fairly. And it was entitled to close the accounts as it’s already done. release of funds I’ve thought about whether Barclays acted fairly in not releasing the remaining funds to Mr G and returning them to source. I’ve looked at the information Mr G has provided and what he’s said about the £3,200. Barclays asked Mr G what the £3,200 was for and he told the bank he’d sold some alloy wheels to a man. Barclays asked for proof of this and Mr G provided a picture of a screen shot of a bank account showing a transaction for £3,200 with the reference ‘buying goods.’ On contacting our service Mr G was asked for evidence surrounding the sale he says he made including any advert for the alloy wheels, his ownership of the alloys which he says he sold, and any correspondence he’d had with the buyer leading up to the sale. But Mr G said he’d provided all he could and that he hadn’t had any further contact with the buyer. I realise this will be disappointing to Mr G, but I’m satisfied that he’s been provided with a number of opportunities both by the bank and this service to demonstrate his entitlement to the outstanding funds. Having looked at the information Mr G has provided, and in the absence of further information, I’m not satisfied that this shows Mr G is entitled to the money which was paid into his account. So, I’m unable to conclude that Barclays has acted unfairly in returning the money to source. fraud marker I’ve next moved on to consider the loading of the CIFAS marker. The marker that Barclays have filed with CIFAS is intended to record that there’s been a ‘misuse of facility’ – relating to using the account to receive fraudulent funds. In order to file such a marker, they’re not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr G is guilty of a fraud of financial crime, but they must show that there are grounds for more than mere suspicion or concern. CIFAS says:  “There must be reasonable grounds to believe that an identified fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted; [and]  The evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct of the subject to the police.”

-- 2 of 3 --

What this means in practice is that a bank must first be able to show that fraudulent funds have entered Mr G’s account, whether they are retained or pass through the account. Secondly, the bank will need to have strong evidence to show that the consumer was deliberately dishonest in receiving the fraudulent payment and knew it was, or might be, an illegitimate payment. But a marker shouldn’t be registered against someone who was unwitting; there should be enough evidence to show deliberate complicity. So, I need to consider whether Barclays have sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof and load a marker for misuse of facility with CIFAS. Having looked at all the information provided, I’m satisfied they have, and I say this because:  I’ve seen evidence from Barclays showing that another bank notified them that the money paid into Mr G’s account on 17 May 2019 was fraudulent.  Mr G’s explained he’d sold alloy wheels he owned to a man who collected them from his home address. And transferred the money on his doorstep. He’s said he had no idea the money he was paid was fraudulent and he’s now out of pocket and without his goods. I’ve seen copies of the screen shot Mr G’s provided of the person’s account he says bought the wheels. But I find it surprising that Mr G hasn’t been able to provide any evidence of how the sale came about – such as an advert, any messages between him and the buyer, any photographs of the wheels, or that he actually owned a set of alloy wheels to sell, such as an invoice showing how and where he came into possession of them. The screen shot also doesn’t make any reference to ‘alloy wheels.’ So, I’m not satisfied that Mr G was an unwitting beneficiary of fraudulent funds as he’s suggested.  I’ve also not seen any evidence that Mr G contacted or attempted to contact the person he says bought the wheels – I think this would’ve been a reasonable course of action to take especially if as Mr G has said he was owed money as he would’ve been out of pocket. And was also without his goods which he’ says he’d sold in good faith. So, when I weigh everything up, I’m satisfied that at the time the bank loaded the CIFAS marker they met the burden of proof required. In reaching this conclusion I’ve considered the evidence provided by Barclays along with Mr G’s explanation. In doing so I’m satisfied that Mr G was complicit in receiving fraudulent funds. And Barclays acted fairly in loading the marker. So, I won’t be asking the bank to remove it. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 1 July 2021. Sharon Kerrison Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --