Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6118330

The complaint Mr C complains Barclays Bank UK PLC registered a fraud marker at Cifas, the national fraud database and closed his account. He’s also unhappy with how it handled his complaint. He doesn’t think it’s treated him fairly. What happened A summary of what happened is below. Mr C held an account with Barclays. In July 2021, following a review it closed the account and loaded a misuse of facility marker at Cifas for raising false chargeback claims. Mr C found out about the marker and contacted Barclays in November 2025, to complain that he’d not done anything to warrant this. He wanted the marker removed, submitting it was affecting him personally and financially. When he didn’t get an acknowledgement, he contacted our service for help. Barclays issued a final response in December. It reviewed Mr C’s concerns but didn’t think it had done anything wrong in loading his details onto Cifas. It said that from the merchant evidence it had received on claims he’d made between March and April 2021, there wasn’t a valid dispute. It said that it had given Mr C temporary credits whilst it investigated, which he shouldn’t have used. And it had written to him with the evidence from the merchants but not had any contact back about this, the unauthorised overdraft, and its decision to close the account. Barclays said it wouldn’t remove the marker but said it could review the loading if Mr C provided additional information. Dissatisfied, Mr C asked us to investigate. Mr C told us that he’d never knowingly committed fraud and therefore Barclays must have recorded the marker in error, due to picking the wrong person or having insufficient evidence. He expressed his concern that he’d not been given the opportunity to defend himself and the bank had failed to acknowledge his complaint within five business days and respond to his request for information. He believed the bank had breached industry regulation and codes of practice. One of our investigators looked into the matter but she didn’t think Barclays needed to do more. She was satisfied Barclays evidence for recording the marker had met the relevant requirements of Cifas and she hadn’t seen any other errors. The investigator set out her analysis for this in her outcome letter. Amongst other things, she found: - She could see the bank had written to Mr C extensively in 2021 at the address he’d given. This included letters about his chargeback disputes and the bank’s decision to close his account. There was no satisfactory explanation why he hadn’t contacted it. - Mr C had said he didn’t have access to his post as the relevant time because he’d been evicted. But the chargeback claims and the bank’s records still had the same address as before. She questioned why he hadn’t changed his address if he was no longer living at the property, which she’d expect to see.

-- 1 of 4 --

- One of the chargeback disputes was in relation to a washing machine which had been delivered to the address Barclays held. She thought it was highly unlikely Mr C would have arranged to have this delivered to an address he wasn’t at. - On balance, she was satisfied he’d received the bank’s correspondence, and he’d chosen not to respond. - Some of the other disputes related to Skrill. Skrill had provided evidence defending the claims, believing them to be false. It provided information to show Mr C had had the benefit of the funds as the transactions were successful. Mr C had acknowledged he had an account with Skrill but had stated he couldn’t recall using it. The investigator found Mr C’s testimony didn’t align with his statements, which showed wide-spread history of payments to Skrill, which weren’t disputed. And the disputed payments were linked to an email address he’d used before. - Overall, what Mr C had said in the chargeback claims wasn’t reflected in the merchants’ evidence. - Weighing what the bank had from the merchants, she was satisfied Barclays had enough information to justify recording false chargeback claims when Mr C had also received pre-credits and had the benefit of the funds. Mr C disagreed, and responded to the investigator’s findings, explaining why she was wrong in interpreting the evidence the way she had. He maintained Barclays had no justification in loading a fraud marker against him and provided information to explain why the chargeback claims weren’t false. Amongst other things and in summary, he said: - He didn’t have access to his old address having been evicted by the landlord. It was impossible to get letters, due to the relationship being toxic. - Out of a number of transactions to Skrill on his account, only two had been claimed which wasn’t indicative of fraud. He recalled something had gone wrong at the time. - He accepted that he’d ordered a new washing machine for his old property, but this was because the landlord refused to give him his deposit back, due to the condition of the machine. He’d tried to resolve the dispute by replacing it. He’d paid extra delivery costs to the company to take the old machine away, but they hadn’t, which led to the chargeback claim. - He could explain everything in relation to all three claims. Therefore, the threshold for recording the marker hadn’t been met. All of this could have been clarified. - He described the personal and financial impact that Barclays’s actions had had on him. - No reference had been made to the fact that Barclays had ignored his complaint for months and his request for information. The investigator said we couldn’t look into Barclays handling of the complaint because complaint handling wasn’t a financial activity under our rules, and if Mr C had concerns about his data request, he could speak with the Information Commissioner’s Office. But in relation to the Cifas marker and account closure she was satisfied there were no failings. Barclays considered Mr C’s additional information but didn’t find it persuasive. It said it stood by its decision that it wouldn’t remove the marker. When an agreement couldn’t be reached, the case was put forward for a 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. I’m very aware that I’ve summarised what has been said in this complaint in far less

-- 2 of 4 --

detail than what has been provided and I’ve done so using my own words. No discourtesy is intended in taking this approach. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. Barclays must have 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. Therefore, in order to decide whether Barclays acted fairly, I need to determine whether it had enough evidence to meet the standard of proof to load the Cifas marker. Mr C would like all the information the bank has relied onto to support the filing. Some of the details on that have already been shared with him through the investigator’s outcome letter. In addition to that, Barclays has submitted some confidential information, which it has asked us not to share. Where there are sensitivities surrounding evidence supplied in confidence, I have to balance expectations with the impact sharing information might have on our ability to receive and consider evidence provided in confidence. Our rules (DISP 3.5.9(2)R) allow me to do this. I’d like to assure Mr C that I have reviewed everything independently and objectively of the parties as I’m required to do. Mr C is already aware that the marker was filed in relation to chargeback claims he made. He doesn’t believe Barclays have met the relevant threshold. However, I’m satisfied the evidence Barclays has, is clear, relevant, and rigorous enough to justify its actions on the filing it made. Mr C has offered explanations to refute the claims were false, but I haven’t found these credible. I think he would have had to be incredibly unlucky to have three chargeback claims made in quick succession and defended with the the responses that came back from the merchants, which were compelling. Mr C says he never got Barclays letters, but I think it’s unlikely he could buy a machine for the property (and arrange delivery) but not be able to retrieve his post. In sending the letters, I’m satisfied he was given a fair opportunity to put across his side – I’ll say more about this below. I’ve also seen the invoice from where he purchased the machine, and there’s no reference to a payment or other details to remove the old machine - the only other payment on the invoice relates to next day delivery. I’ve also looked at the online banking records. These show payments in April and May (when Barclays wrote to him). The next substantive contact from Mr C appears to be four years later, which is unusual where around the time of his chargeback claims, he’d been using the accounts regularly. Mr C says he was preoccupied with personal matters, but notwithstanding, I would have expected him to have had some interaction with the bank before the accounts were closed. All things considered, the available evidence points to the most likely explanation being, Mr C was aware of the situation on his account, including on the chargebacks and he chose not to do anything, having benefitted from the pre-credits, which he had no basis to utilise/keep. The marker was lodged in July 2021, which is when the account was closed. Looking at Cifas’s guidance to its members, I’d expect both things to happen broadly at the same time and after the business had completed its review, which can take a little time. The investigator passed on Mr C’s further information to Barclays, but it didn’t think this made a difference. After weighing everything, I don’t think it’s position to record the marker and continue to retain it is unreasonable. On the issue of closing Mr C’s account, there’s provision within the account agreement for

-- 3 of 4 --

Barclays to do that. Given why it made the loading, I’m satisfied the closure was in line with the account terms and conditions. I understand Mr C is upset with the bank’s actions and not least because of the impact this matter is having on him, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest Barclays has broken any regulation or treated him unfairly. Finally, Mr C is unhappy with Barclays handling of his formal complaint. He says he heard nothing until we got involved and then via our investigator. However, I feel his concerns about this are solely about complaint handling, rather than a financial service. Dissatisfaction solely about the way a firm has handled a complaint does not fall within the scope of our jurisdiction. So, I have no power to consider this matter and even if I did, Mr C hasn’t been stopped from referring his complaint to us for an independent review, which he has now had. I’m sorry to disappoint him and I hope he’s able to get some appropriate support with the difficulties he’s experiencing. But there’s no proper basis for me to require Barclays to do anything more based on the available evidence. My decision marks the end of our involvement in this complaint. If Mr C remains unhappy, I’m afraid he will need to pursue the matter through other avenues outside of our service. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Sarita Taylor Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --