‘I told Barclays about a £4,000 scam within minutes of it happening – but they said they could do nothing’

Jean Bishop was called on her mobile from someone claiming to be from Barclays. When she asked how she could be sure it was genuine, she was told they would call her back from Barclays Premier banking, which they did. The Barclays Premier number showed up on her phone. She was told they were concerned about activity on her bank account and asked her to move her money to a safe haven account. She agreed to move £4,000 of the £16,000 in her account and was told she would get a text to confirm it had been moved, which she did. But at this point she became suspicious and used another phone to call the real Barclays fraud team to ask if the first call was genuine. It wasn’t.

While the fraudster was still on the other line, Barclays identified the receiving bank, Metro. Despite this, Barclays told her it would not refund the money because she had authorised the payment.

Bishop does not understand why Barclays could not trace the fraudster, who was still on the line, and why the Metro account was not instantly frozen and investigated by both the bank and the police.

Bank fraud victims likely to be offered fairer treatment Read more

Barclays’ investigation team told her that when it contacted Metro there was no money in the account and it would not refund her. She claims she asked Barclays when exactly it had contacted Metro, and the bank said it could not tell her. “When the fraud was reported we send a funds remaining enquiry (FRE) to the beneficiary bank … They did confirm that no funds remained in the account when the FRE was sent,” she was told in a letter.

On 27 April, after the Guardian contacted Barclays, Bishop received a letter saying the bank had reviewed the original investigation, and that there was a change of outcome as a result. She was told that at the point she contacted the fraud team, £300 of her money had been spent but the rest remained, which was now being refunded. This was despite Barclays having told her in the final resolution letter that no money was left in the receiving bank’s account. Bishop believes the bank acted with gross incompetence at best. Barclays apologised and offered her £150 as compensation.

Bishop said after the fraud she couldn’t stop crying. “I felt ashamed that I fell for the trick and I lost confidence in my own decision-making and became suspicious of everyone who called me – including my own GP.” She told the Guardian: “I am appalled at how the banks are treating their customers. Their own investigation has been shown up to be incorrect. This could have cost me – and nearly did, if I hadn’t gone to the press – £3,700. Their failure to accept any responsibility in these cases of sophisticated fraud is nothing short of shocking.”

Barclays said: “At the point Mrs Bishop notified us that she had been the victim of a scam, £300 had unfortunately already been spent. However, having reviewed this case further, we acknowledge that we could have acted faster in referring her to our specialist fraud team and have therefore agreed to return the remaining £3,700 with our apologies – alongside an offer of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.”

‘The call from NatWest came just days after they sorted out a fraud. Of course I thought it was genuine – but lost £20,000’

Helen Silva was defrauded out of £19,949 in December 2018 after being the victim of number spoofing.

The number she was spoofed on was a special NatWest 0845 number. The previous week she had had several genuine interactions with NatWest staff regarding potential security threats to her accounts on that number. So she was already on high alert to security threats. But, she says, at no time was she warned that fraudsters might use that very same spoofed NatWest security phone number to steal her money.

The fraudster ran through details of recent transactions, standing orders and direct debits, which only someone with access to her account would know. She was convinced that the call was genuine because she believed only NatWest would be able to access such details. At no time did she disclose her pin or security credentials, she says. She was tricked into transferring £19,949 to a new account.

Silva told the Guardian: “This has had a significantly negative impact on me and my husband’s mental health, our plans for the future and our trust in anyone. It has also adversely affected our three children and our wider friends and family. We have lost nearly £20,000 of long-term savings in a cruel and sophisticated criminal act and no one seems to care.”

Four months after she was spoofed, she received a curt letter from NatWest saying: “As previously advised, as you authorised the transaction for the sum of £19,949, the bank accepts no liability. However, we have contacted the beneficiary bank and were able to recover partial funds. I confirm the total amount of £16.08 has been credited back to your bank account.”

The letter was dated 1 April 2019. When Silva read that she had been refunded £16.08 she initially thought it was an April fool, but she soon discovered it was genuine.

We asked NatWest why she had not been refunded when others who had been similarly scammed had been, and why NatWest had not warned her and other customers that its numbers were arguably vulnerable to number spoofing.

On 16 April, NatWest told the Guardian: “On review, we have decided to refund Mrs Silva in full for her loss as a gesture of goodwill, and we wish to apologise for any distress caused to her while we reached this decision.”

‘I sent £30,000 to Metro and Barclays accounts after what appeared to be a genuine call from NatWest’

On 22 June 2018, Bill Edmonds received a call from a NatWest number stating that his account was in danger of being hacked and, as NatWest had stopped fraud successfully on this account before, the safest thing would be to transfer his money to a new account. Six months earlier he had received another call on this number telling him of a fraud that had been successfully intercepted. He had no reason to distrust the number. After all, the number was a perk of his NatWest Platinum account, for which he paid £20 a month.

Edmonds set up a new account on 23 June 2018. When he logged on to his old account, it said “suspended”, and he was informed by the fraudster that this was done by NatWest to prevent fraud.

On 23 June and 25 June, he transferred the money out. He was then advised by the fraudster to visit a NatWest branch to check the new account had been set up. He did so on 26 June, when he discovered he had been a spoofing victim and that his funds had been transferred to Barclays and Metro accounts.

In total, he transferred £17,562.41 on 23 June to the Barclays account, and £12,346.65 to the Metro account on 25 June. He says he was provided with no emotional or monetary support, even though his account had just been emptied.

On 11 July he received £17.57 from Metro, but the NatWest case handler only became aware of this because Edmonds told him. On 29 August he received £2,787 from Barclays – again, this was only discussed with the case handler because Edmonds informed him.

Later in July, NatWest wrote to Edmonds stating: “Whilst I fully sympathise you have been a victim of a scam, the bank has made no error and the correct processes have been followed.” The bank did apologise for the poor service Edmonds received but told him it would not refund his money.

We asked NatWest why it did not question him about the withdrawals when they were so out of character, and why NatWest had taken no action to warn customers that this special Platinum number was arguably vulnerable to fraud. When he received a new card, the information leaflet for the debit card stated: “If we think someone else is trying to use your card we may contact you by phone or text.” The number cited in this leaflet was the same (albeit spoofed) number through which he was defrauded.

NatWest told Edmonds that the account had been renamed “suspended accounts” by the bank in an attempt to investigate the fraud when in fact it was the fraudster who renamed it “suspended accounts”.

On 17 April this year, Natwest agreed to refund Edmonds’ money. NatWest said: “We sincerely sympathise with Mr Edmonds, who has been the victim of a scam, and appreciate this has been a very difficult time for him. We take fraud and scams very seriously and, having been asked to revisit this case by the Financial Ombudsman, we have decided to refund him in full for his loss as a gesture of goodwill. We wish to apologise for any distress caused to Mr Edmonds while we reached this decision.”

All names have been changed

How the scam works

There is nothing to stop fraudsters changing the caller ID to mirror that of your bank. If the receiving mobile already has the bank’s number in its contacts list, the handset will show that NatWest, Metro or whoever is calling.

Similarly, texts from fraudsters using a spoofed number, will show up as being from the bank – often appearing alongside legitimate texts sent out by the bank.

Which? recently warned consumers to be on their guard against this growing problem. It says texts have been particularly effective at duping customers because of the way smartphones group messages that claim to come from the same source.

If you receive a voice or automated call – either at home or on your mobile – that claims to be from your bank, hang up. Having cleared the line, phone the bank yourself on the number shown on your bank card. Texts should be treated as equally suspicious.

The banks have said they can’t prevent scammers using technology to impersonate them, as they don’t control the gateways through which spoofed texts are sent.