Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6119558

The complaint Miss M complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC won’t refund the money she says she’s lost to a scam. What happened In September 2025, Miss M paid a total of £1,777 from her Barclays account for a specialist aesthetics training course provided by a company I’ll refer to as ‘S’. Miss M says that the course was advertised in a way that implied it was CPD-certified and suitable for UK practice. She completed the course but has since discovered that it wasn’t CPD-certified. Miss M believes the course was misrepresented to her, and she raised a fraud claim with Barclays on this basis. Barclays thought the matter was a civil dispute rather than a scam, and so declined to refund Miss M. It said that she has paid for, and completed, a course. Miss M complained about the bank’s decision, then referred her complaint to our Service when Barclays maintained its stance. Our investigator didn’t uphold Miss M’s complaint. On balance, they agreed this was likely a civil dispute. Miss M has appealed the investigator’s outcome, and her 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 Miss M authorised the disputed payments. That means the starting position is that she’s liable for them. In line with the Payment Services Regulations, firms are expected to process authorised payment instructions without undue delay. However, Miss M says she made the payments 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 Miss M’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 a 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 Miss M’s strength of feeling on this matter and I can understand why she feels she has been scammed if she hasn’t achieved her desired outcome in completing the course. But the disputed payments went to the person she 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 Miss M wasn’t tricked into making payments to a scammer that had no intention of delivering the service she was paying for. Miss M paid a legitimate business for an aesthetics training course which was provided. It’s apparent that there’s been some confusion between the parties about the ‘CPD Accredited’ claim in the course provider’s advertisement – with S saying it intended to convey CPD membership and Miss M taking it to mean that the course was CPD-certified. But I’m not persuaded that the course provider took Miss M’s money with no intention of providing the required service – the aesthetics course was delivered to Miss M. I note that Miss M has recently raised that the course bore no resemblance to the 2-day intensive course that was advertised. But I haven’t seen any persuasive corroborative evidence of the claim Miss M has now raised and I don’t think it makes a difference to the outcome of this complaint in any event. It remains that I haven’t seen any convincing evidence which indicates that S obtained Miss M’s money with no intention of carrying out the required service. I think it’s most likely they intended to provide the required service when the disputed payments were made. I can see why Miss M is unhappy with the situation she’s in. She has my sympathies and I understand how upsetting and disappointing the whole matter has been. But, in the circumstances, I don’t think it was unfair for Barclays to reject her 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 Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Kyley Hanson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --