Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6056989

The complaint Mr G complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC (“Barclays”) won’t refund him money, which he believes he has lost to a scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to all parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary, I understand it to be as follows. In or around June 2025, Mr G was looking to have some work done in his garden. He found a builder through an advertisement on a well-known social media platform, who I’ll call “C”. Mr G has said he checked C on Companies House, he was local and he saw positive reviews. Mr G contacted C and agreed for him to carry out the work. Mr G has said C initially did some fencing work; however, the rest of the work wasn’t completed, and Mr G hasn’t received materials that he sent C money for. Mr G has said that since then, despite attempts, he has been unable to contact C. Mr G is disputing four payments that he made to C, which he made from his Barclays account between 26 June 2025 and 15 July 2025, totalling £3,700. He made an earlier payment to C, for £1,500 on 13 June 2025, which doesn’t appear to be in dispute. Believing he’d fallen victim to a scam, Mr G raised the matter with Barclays, but it did not consider it was liable for Mr G’s loss. In summary, this was because it thought what had happened was a civil matter. Unhappy with Barclays’ response, Mr G brought his complaint to this service. One of our Investigators looked into things. But they agreed with Barclays, that this was most likely a civil dispute, and so Mr G was not entitled to a refund of the payment he had made. Mr G didn’t agree with our Investigator’s view, he maintained that what had happened was a scam. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final 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 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 G 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 the disputed payment was made. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK, like Barclays, have been bound by the Faster

-- 1 of 4 --

Payments Scheme (FPS) and the CHAPS reimbursement rules (“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 G and C meets the Reimbursement Rules’ definition of an APP scam or could more reasonably be classed as a civil dispute. The Reimbursement 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.” In its published policy statement PS23/3, the Payment Systems Regulator gave further guidance: “2.6 Civil disputes do not meet our definition of an APP fraud as the customer has not been deceived […] The law protects consumer rights when purchasing goods and services, including through the Consumer Rights Act.” 2.5 provides an example of when this might apply: “…such as where a customer has paid a legitimate supplier for goods or services but has not received them, they are defective in some way, or the customer is otherwise dissatisfied with the supplier.” 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. Having thought about this carefully, I’m not satisfied that the Reimbursement Rules cover Mr G’s payment. There is no dispute here that Mr G paid the person he intended on paying, so the first part of the APP scam definition doesn’t apply here. I’ve therefore gone on to consider whether, as a result of dishonesty, the payment was made for a purpose other than Mr G intended. In order to be satisfied Mr G has fallen victim to an APP scam, I need to be persuaded C set out to defraud him. The allegation of fraud is a serious one. While I can reach my findings on the balance of probabilities (rather than beyond all reasonable doubt for example), to find C did intend to defraud Mr G, I’d need to see convincing evidence to show fraud is the most likely explanation over any other possibility. Here, the purpose of the payment was to complete building work. While I appreciate that Mr G has said that the work wasn’t completed and materials were not received. It is clear from the evidence that C had previously attended Mr G’s property, and it is not in dispute that some other work was carried out by C (which was fencing work). So, while I don’t doubt what Mr G has said, in that work hasn’t been carried out/materials haven’t been received,

-- 2 of 4 --

the evidence doesn’t support that C deceived Mr G about the very purpose of the payment (that being for the provision of building work). Alongside this, whilst I can’t go into specific details due to data protection reasons, information I’ve seen from the beneficiary bank (the bank to which the faster payment was made) supports that C didn’t have a different intention for the money that was received. Activity on the account demonstrates transactions that are consistent with the account being used by somebody carrying out work in the building trade. Alongside this, the beneficiary bank also considered what has happened to be a dispute between Mr G and C, rather than a scam. I’m mindful Mr G has said that there is evidence of other negative reviews regarding C, and he has shared some examples of this. But while I agree that the reviews that have been shared are not positive – I’ve also seen that there have been positive reviews about the work C has carried out. Which you wouldn’t expect to see for someone who is setting out with the intent to defraud people. As well as this, and as mentioned above, Mr G has said that he’d had work carried out by C previously. While this, of course, doesn’t rule out the possibility that C could later go on to commit a fraud, I find it more compellingly demonstrates that C has provided similar services satisfactorily before. And while I accept it’s frustrating when works don’t go to plan. Unfortunately, this is a common feature even in legitimate building arrangements. Alongside this, at the time the payments were made, C was registered on Companies House and seemingly had been for some time. I acknowledge that Mr G did not ultimately receive what he had paid for and has said that C is trying to dissolve their company. But there are many reasons, other than fraud, why a trader may fail to meet their commitments or why a business may fail. They may act unprofessionally, may get into financial or personal difficulties and work may be completed to a poor standard. But it doesn’t automatically follow that this demonstrates an intent to defraud. The evidence here lends itself more to the notion that a trader has set out with the intent to complete work but hasn’t completed it - a scenario which isn’t covered by the Reimbursement Rules. I understand that Mr G has reported the matter to Action Fraud, Trading Standards, and other government bodies. But I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest that any substantive lines of enquiry are being pursued against C, nor that any charges have been brought. While I’m mindful it isn’t necessary for a criminal conviction to have been secured or for charges to have been brought for what happened here to meet the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam - the fact that the relevant authorities appear not to be pursuing a substantive investigation into the allegations raised by Mr G suggests to me that the evidence presented does not, on its own, currently carry sufficient weight to support a finding of fraud. I don’t intend any comments or findings I’ve made in this decision to downplay or diminish the impact these matters have had on Mr G, and I don’t underestimate his strength of feeling. But in the circumstances, having carefully considered everything, I don’t find Barclays were wrong to decline Mr G’s claim when considering the Reimbursement Rules. Neither do I find there were any other failings on Barclays part that would lead me to uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Stephen Wise Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --