Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6196499

The complaint Mr H has complained Barclays Bank UK PLC, trading as Barclaycard won’t refund him for a credit card transaction he didn’t authorise. What happened Mr H had held a credit card account with Barclaycard since 2024. He’d not used his card that frequently but had used it for flights. In March 2025 Mr H went overseas for a prolonged period and took his Barclaycard with him as back-up for emergency use. Throughout his time away he predominantly used another bank account he held for his day-to-day expenses. After coming back to the city after a trip away, Mr H noticed a large-value transaction almost up to the value of his credit limit had taken place on his card account. As he was overseas, he had difficulty raising his concerns with Barclaycard that this was a fraudulent transaction and ended up having to pay to courier his claim form. There was one transaction for £2,968.13 including the foreign exchange costs which had been carried out in the city whilst Mr H was elsewhere in the country. He asked Barclaycard to refund him. Barclaycard felt they had enough evidence to show Mr H either made this transaction himself or had authorised it. They wouldn’t refund him. After Mr H paid off the debt on his credit card, Barclaycard decided to close his account. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr H brought his complaint to the ombudsman service. Our investigator noted that the transaction was executed using the genuine card and was verified by signature. She also noted that Mr H believed the card remained in his possession throughout so dismissed the suggestion an unknown third party could have made this disputed transaction. Overall, she wasn’t going to ask Barclaycard to do anything further. Unhappy with this, Mr H has asked an ombudsman to consider his complaint. 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 done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as our investigator. I’ll explain why. Where there is a dispute about what happened, I have based my decision on the balance of probabilities. In other words, on what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence. When considering what is fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account: relevant law and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time.

-- 1 of 3 --

To help me come to a decision, I’ve reviewed the evidence Barclaycard provided, which has included information about how this transaction was authenticated. The law which is relevant to Mr H’s complaint is section 83 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. These confirm a consumer credit consumer won’t be liable for the misuse of their credit facility – in this case Mr H’s credit card – unless they consented to the transactions themselves or allowed another person to use their credit facility. I believe this transaction was authorised by Mr H. I say this because: • According to the evidence I’ve seen, the transaction was used at a clothing store in the city and executed using Mr H’s genuine card. Mr H says his card was with him and he wasn’t in the city. He believes it could have been stolen when he was using the shower or similar but that wouldn’t explain how the transaction happened in a different geographical location to Mr H. Or why an unknown third party would return Mr H’s credit card to where it had been after fraudulent use. Any third party in this scenario would be most likely to get rid of Mr H’s card, rather than return it. • I’ve interrogated the evidence Barclaycard shared with our service. This shows the genuine card was used as the chip was read. Additional authentication at the time of purchase was by signature. How cards are accepted and authenticated can differ from country to country but those differences in themselves wouldn’t suggest anything unusual or mean any additional checks should be carried out. Barclaycard has unsurprisingly not been able to share a copy of the signature with us. Mr H believes they should but I’m not sure what that would show. As Mr H says he wasn’t in the city at the time, I think it’s unlikely the signature is his, but this doesn’t mean that Mr H didn’t allow a third party to use his card. • I note the disputed transaction used almost all of the remaining credit limit on Mr H’s credit card account. I’m not sure how an unknown third party would be aware of this. There’s certainly no evidence that other attempts were made to use Mr H’s card which would have been expected if this was unknown third party fraud. • Our investigator has tried to get to the bottom of what happened. This included testing Mr H’s testimony to see whether he could have been the victim of a scam. Mr H denies this is what happened. That leaves few alternative scenarios to explain what was going on here without thinking, as I do, that Mr H allowed a known third party to use his card. This would mean under both consumer credit and payment services legislation that this transaction is not unauthorised. I can’t tell for sure whether Mr H allowed someone else to use his credit card or made a transaction he later regretted but overall based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied he authorised this transaction. I’ve also noted Mr H’s concerns that he had difficulty reporting this fraud to Barclaycard because of his location at the time. I’m sure that must have added to his frustration when trying to get this issue sorted. My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is not to uphold Mr H’s complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC, trading as Barclaycard.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Sandra Quinn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --