Major APP fraud - Barclays refusing to reimburse

Socajam

This story and another story I just read about someone being with a person for 10 months, engaged put the person on their mortgage and remortgage to the tune of 30K
The ex took 10K from the account and now wants half of the other equity in the house.
I am not sure what people are eating these days, but they have lost the will to be careful.

Stubod

My favourite Homer Simpson quote..... "it's everybodies fault but mine" ?

I am really sorry that you have been conned, but it sounds like Barclays did do their due diligence when they asked you to confirm the transaction so I can't really see how they can be considered liable?

masonic

brutal_deluxe said:

I wanted to shift a huge amount of money to a savings account so found a legitimate looking provider right at the top of a Google search. Interest rates not suspiciously high at all.
Man claiming to be from Prudential calls me.

It's unfortunate that your online activity has led to you becoming a target of a scam, and that Barclays' call to you did not get you to reconsider the transfer. I have nothing to add to others' comments in that regard.

The cold call from the scammer is likely the result of you providing contact information online on a scammer's website. The success of the first scam has likely put your name on a 'suckers' list and you should be prepared for further such attempts. For example, another scammer could try to convince you they can help you recover the money or pursue a claim. Be on your guard.

AnotherJoe

Whilst the OP needs his head examining, a reminder that this appears to be an out and out scam and Barclays froze the recipient account, so I don't understand why they didn't find in his favour, so he should continue up the complaint chain.
what that is I don't know, but if It really isa huge sum of money, take it as far as legal action
Also OP have you contacted one of the major newspaper financial help columnists? Times, Telegraph for example? 

eskbanker

AnotherJoe said:

a reminder that this appears to be an out and out scam and Barclays froze the recipient account, so I don't understand why they didn't find in his favour

The fact that they're obliged to freeze an account in response to a scam allegation doesn't mean that they should accept responsibility for the scam in the first place, i.e. once OP alleges it's a scam they may agree but that doesn't make them liable to reimburse, given that OP ignored the warning....

bowlhead99

AnotherJoe said:

Whilst the OP needs his head examining, a reminder that this appears to be an out and out scam and Barclays froze the recipient account, so I don't understand why they didn't find in his favour, so he should continue up the complaint chain.
what that is I don't know, but if It really isa huge sum of money, take it as far as legal action

Barclays are not saying that it wasn't a scam.

They are just saying that the OP is to blame for the success of the scam, because when they saw OP trying to move a lot of money from his account - and it wasn't one of OP's own accounts at Barclays or another financial institution but was instead an account in someone else's name - they called him to check that he definitely did want to move the money to that account.

He did not call up Prudential to check that it was a legitimate product and definitely the right bank account to receive his x thousand pounds, and simply told Barclays that it was definitely correct and they should go ahead.

Also OP have you contacted one of the major newspaper financial help columnists? Times, Telegraph for example? 

That would seem to be a good place to go because even if the bank has no legal or moral obligation to pay out for something that wasn't their fault, they may prefer to get some positive publicity from it.  Times Money often publishes success stories (though granted they only have 50 weekends a year to write about them and must get thousands or request for help).

Can't hurt to try, though the papers do also publish cautionary tales where the service provider doesn't budge. The bank would presumably not want to open the floodgates for every similar claim, so may have something akin to a policy of 'deny every claim, don't tell the newspapers we will pay up if the customer badgers us enough...'

Archi_Bald

From what the OP told us about his misfortune, no amount of badgering, complaining or publicising will get Barclays to pay up. Short of blocking the OP from using his own money, Barclays could not have done more to warn the OP than they did. 

AnotherJoe

eskbanker said:

AnotherJoe said:

a reminder that this appears to be an out and out scam and Barclays froze the recipient account, so I don't understand why they didn't find in his ofavour

The fact that they're obliged to freeze an account in response to a scam allegation doesn't mean that they should accept responsibility for the scam in the first place, i.e. once OP alleges it's a scam they may agree but that doesn't make them liable to reimburse, given that OP ignored the warning....

Assuming that the fraudster is impersonating a company Then I think Barclays woudl be clearly colluding with fraud by allowing someone who used false details to sign up for a bank account to revive the money and should at least have passed this to the authorities. 

Zanderman

bowlhead99 said:

Also OP have you contacted one of the major newspaper financial help columnists? Times, Telegraph for example? 

That would seem to be a good place to go because even if the bank has no legal or moral obligation to pay out for something that wasn't their fault, they may prefer to get some positive publicity from it.  Times Money often publishes success stories (though granted they only have 50 weekends a year to write about them and must get thousands or request for help).

Can't hurt to try, though the papers do also publish cautionary tales where the service provider doesn't budge. The bank would presumably not want to open the floodgates for every similar claim, so may have something akin to a policy of 'deny every claim, don't tell the newspapers we will pay up if the customer badgers us enough...'

I think all the papers do this - as well as the Times the Guardian money pages often have stories about this sort of thing and sometimes get results when the individual has failed to. I'm sure the Telegraph, Mail etc do the same.
But, as bowlhead says, they must have loads of people writing in.  So they can pick and choose.  And they won't always be successful and might actually just flag it as a cautionary tale - as that is, let's face it (and that includes you OP!) what this is - a cautionary tale.
The bank did nothing wrong, the OP over-rode their concern and questions - so this is entirely the OP's fault.  The OP only thought to double-check afterwards.  
Getting recompense for this would be wrong.  
 

colsten

AnotherJoe said:

eskbanker said:

AnotherJoe said:

a reminder that this appears to be an out and out scam and Barclays froze the recipient account, so I don't understand why they didn't find in his ofavour

The fact that they're obliged to freeze an account in response to a scam allegation doesn't mean that they should accept responsibility for the scam in the first place, i.e. once OP alleges it's a scam they may agree but that doesn't make them liable to reimburse, given that OP ignored the warning....

Assuming that the fraudster is impersonating a company Then I think Barclays woudl be clearly colluding with fraud by allowing someone who used false details to sign up for a bank account to revive the money and should at least have passed this to the authorities. 

You would have to provide evidence that Barclays colluded with a fraudster, and that the fraudster used a bank account in a company's name. You would also have to provide evidence that the fraudster used false details to apply for a Barclays account. You have no information on whether and what Barclays passed to the authorities.