Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6190321

The complaint Mr M complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC, trading as Barclaycard, won’t provide him with a refund when he became a victim of a dating fraud or scam. What happened In 2023, Mr M signed up to an exclusive international matchmaking agency (Company S) to help him find a life partner. Company S charged a fee of £16,750 to arrange matches and introductory dates. On 28 August 2023, Mr M paid £6,874.73 as part of the fee using his credit card. He used another credit card with financial Firm A to make further payments. Mr M was assigned a matchmaker and after providing personal information to enable her to find the right match for him he was matched with several people. However, the introductory meetings or dates didn’t go well, and he was disappointed and angry with four of the matches as ‘every match provided by Company S was inferior and failed to align with my stated preferences and ‘none of these women that I was introduced to can be described as any sort of high-quality matches’. Mr M told the matchmaker that the ‘individuals presented were of subpar quality’, and highlighted issues with their personality, behaviour, looks, accents and financial demands. And he appears to have been seeking a refund of the fees he’d paid. Then, in February 2024, the matchmaker sent Mr M an email intended for a colleague. Mr M found her comments and views about him discussing dates with his mother, having mother issues and not being as wealthy as portrayed, extremely insulting and he was alarmed by the following comments • ‘I finally managed to squeeze the second installment out of Mr M’. • ‘I will keep him entertained.’ Mr M complained to Company S, demanding a refund of his fees including overseas travel expenses. Although Company S apologised for the email error they didn’t provide him with a refund. So, Mr M contacted his banks seeking a refund. Mr M told Barclays that Company S was running a fraudulent scheme and he requested a refund of his £6,874.73 payment, pointing out that he received a refund from Firm A for the fees he paid through their credit card. Barclays rejected Mr M’s main complaint. They explained that: • Company S declined their representations through Visa. • Their specialist team completed three reviews of his claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But, from reviewing the merchant’s Terms and Conditions, they were unable to prove a breach of contract or misrepresentation. • Couldn’t comment on how Firm A reviewed his claim and came to the refund outcome.

-- 1 of 3 --

Barclays did though recognise their service could’ve been better by advising Mr M that the disputed amount couldn’t be suspended due to the time period, and they awarded him £100 as an apology. Mr M escalated his complaint to our service highlighting fraudulent misrepresentation, systematic delay, non-performance of its contractual and publicly advertised guarantees. But our investigator didn’t think there was sufficient evidence of fraud or a scam and he couldn’t see Barclays had done anything wrong for a buyer/seller dispute. As Mr M remains dissatisfied, he asked for his complaint to be passed to an Ombudsman. 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. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account relevant law and regulations; regulatory rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider having been good industry practice at the time. Regarding a bank’s obligation to help protect customers from financial harm from fraud and scams, these are where the funds are being lost to a fraud or scam. I appreciate Mr M believes he’s a victim of a scam and although I understand his annoyance, upset and reasons for wanting a refund, when considering whether he was a victim of a fraud or scam, my key finding is that I’m not persuaded that he was. I appreciate that there are some poor one-star reviews on a trust website which has a verification process and some include scam comments. I also recognise comments in one email, that was sent in error, which were upsetting, offensive, unprofessional and could potentially raise suspicions on the integrity of the match making process and company’s motivation. However, I’ve also seen: • Many positive reviews from individuals (both male and female) and in the media including major international magazines about the matchmaking service Company S provide. • Evidence in Mr M’s submissions that he was matched with several individuals and did have introductions with most of them including dates. Also, he wasn’t totally dissatisfied with all of his introductions. For one person, although he felt she wasn’t ‘on brief’, he said she was ‘lovely but not right’. • An email and dialogue that refers to Mr M seeking a refund and looking for an exit before the email error and, at this point, he said: o ‘Through no fault of your own this agency model does not work for me. If we consider the 6 month trial where I’ve been active, it has not worked. There is nothing wrong with you or your service or your desire to match me, the system doesn’t fit me. You have been amazing and unbelievable.’ • That both the matchmaker and Company S mention that the process can be lengthy as it relies on feedback. • That there were periods where Mr M froze his membership and Company S’s literature says, some members do wish to ‘just date and see where it goes’ and talks about enjoyment. So, this could possibly explain some of the email comments and language. • Mr M comments that ‘The girls on the agency is not on the elite level I was expecting’

-- 2 of 3 --

and I noticed that the criticisms about the people he was matched with, who didn’t meet his expectations, are about personality traits and looks. And a matchmaker wouldn’t necessarily be aware of these as they are subjective. Also, some behaviours may be more noticeable in a dating scenario and, because of the subjectivity, may not have been viewed as unattractive to other members and passed on to the matchmaker. So, when weighing up all the available evidence, on balance, I can’t safely say this meets the high legal threshold and burden of proof for fraud or scam. I appreciate Mr M will disagree, but this instead appears to be a civil dispute.Therefore, Barclays’ obligations to protect their customers from financial harm from fraud and scams doesn’t apply to this payment and their primary obligation was to carry out Mr M’s payment instruction without delay – which I’m satisfied they did. I should point out that even if I considered Barclays responsibilities to monitor Mr M’s account (under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and FCA’s Consumer Duty) and decided they should’ve blocked his payment on 28 August 2023 to intervene and ask probing questions (to detect a fraud or scam), I don’t think this would’ve made a difference and stopped him making the payment. This is because he authorised the payment and, from looking at his dialogue with the matchmaker at that time, he would’ve more likely than not said it was for the matchmaking and dating services that he wanted to receive. And, as mentioned above, the company had a legitimate footprint. Regarding Barclays recovery attempts, I’m satisfied that they did: • Raise a chargeback dispute but, as they explained, the decision to decline wasn’t theirs and the merchant had evidence (contract and services rendered) to contest it. • Carefully consider S75 of the Consumer Credit Act. But, based on their analysis of the submissions provided, there was insufficient evidence of a breach of contract or a misrepresentation. And for the reasons mentioned above, when considering the evidence presented, I don’t think this was unreasonable. Regarding Mr M receiving a refund from Firm A, there is limited information on their reasoning, but it appears to be because Mr M declared the disputed transaction as unrecognised, which is different to this case. And as our service hasn’t investigated that case and must assess each case on its own individual merits, it isn’t possible for me to say that Barclays acted inconsistently and therefore should’ve also provided a refund. Finally, I considered Barclays’ compensation payment for their lack of communication, and I think £100 was a fair and reasonable amount as a way of apologising and I’m satisfied this is in line with our publicly available guidance. In conclusion, I’m genuinely very sorry to hear about Mr M’s distress, but for the above- mentioned reasons, I don’t think Barclays acted unfairly or unreasonably here and I’m not upholding this complaint. My final decision For the reasons mentioned above, my final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Barclaycard. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 4 April 2026. Paul Douglas Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --