Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6248080

The complaint Miss N complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC loaded a negative fraud marker against her on the National Fraud Database. She’d like it removed and compensation for the impact caused. What happened Miss N had an account with Barclays. In July 2023 Barclays made the decision to close Miss N’s account with two months’ notice. However, in August 2023 they changed this to an immediate closure and at the same time loaded a negative fraud marker against Miss N on the national fraud database. In 2025 Miss N contacted Barclays to try to find out more about the marker and why it had been loaded. But Barclays didn’t initially log Miss N’s complaint properly advising because she didn’t know her account details they weren’t able to record the complaint. Miss N also raised a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR). Barclays offered Miss N £50 compensation for the error in failing to log her complaint, but Miss N didn’t accept and brought her complaint to our service. One of our Investigators considered Miss N’s complaint. They didn’t think Barclays acted fairly in loading the negative fraud marker against Miss N, and they were satisfied that Miss N had been caused inconvenience by Barclays actions. Our Investigator recommended that Barclays pay Miss N £250 compensation and remove the negative fraud marker. They also asked Barclays to resend the DSAR they’d previously sent. Barclays accepted but Miss N didn’t. In December 2025 Barclays removed all negative fraud markers recorded against Miss N. Miss N explained that three of her other bank accounts had been closed, and for one she had to into the branch several times to sort out the account. Miss W wasn’t able to get her benefits for a while and she had to get an advance of funds from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) because she couldn’t access other funds she’d been paid. Miss N shared evidence of the advanced funds she’d been paid, the account closures and payment card she’d been given to access her benefits. On reviewing the new evidence our Investigator increased the compensation they felt appropriate to £350. Barclays agreed, but Miss N thought the compensation was insufficient and thought it should at least be higher than the advance funds she’d received from the DWP. As Miss N didn’t agree it’s 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

Barclays have accepted that the negative fraud marker was loaded unfairly. And they’ve removed the marker so I won’t be considering this any further. Instead, I’ll be focusing on the impact of Barclays’ service failings and the loading on Miss N. Miss N’s shared evidence that her bank accounts with three other banks were closed. Although in the evidence she’s shared there’s nothing to show these accounts were closed as a direct result of the negative fraud marker, I’m satisfied it’s likely this is the case. I can also see from Miss N’s credit file that she’s struggled to open a new payment account. But, I’ve seen from the letters Miss N’s shared that two of her three accounts weren’t closed until May and June 2025. I’m pleased to see that although the negative fraud marker was loaded in August 2023 Miss N managed to maintain banking facilities for the first two years the marker was loaded. Miss N also added that the closure of one of her accounts caused her significant inconvenience because of errors made in the closure. However, as these errors were carried out by another bank I can’t hold Barclays responsible. I’ve also seen evidence from Miss N that she had advance funds from the DWP and was using a payment card. I’m satisfied that it’s highly likely the lack of access to a payment account caused Miss N challenges in obtaining her benefits. And this caused her inconvenience. I understand that Miss N would like the compensation she’s awarded from this complaint to match the £400 she received in advance funds from the DWP. However, Miss N didn’t suffer a £400 loss by taking the advance funds, so I can’t say that I would expect Barclays to directly compensate this. For the reasons I’ve previously outlined I’m satisfied Miss N was caused inconvenience by Barclays’ actions. I’ve thought about the appropriate level of compensation here. I realise this will disappoint Miss N but based on the length of time she was significantly impacted by the marker, around 6 months, and the inconvenience Miss N was caused in Barclays’ failing to log her complaint I think £350 compensation is fair and is in line with our approach for trouble and upset awards. Putting things right For the reasons I’ve outlined above I’m awarding Miss N £350 compensation for the impact caused to her by Barclays’ actions. My final decision My final decision is I uphold Miss N’s complaint and direct Barclays Bank UK PLC to: • Pay Miss N £350 compensation for the impact caused to her Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss N to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jeff Burch Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --