When Roger Wall popped to the shops for bread, milk and other essentials in October, his account was debited for £7.89 as expected.
Roger, 80, a retired facilities manager, had been visiting his nearest Tesco supermarket, a ten-minute walk from his home in Orpington, south-east London on October 25.
But, a week later, when his bank statement arrived in the post, it revealed that in addition to his shopping, Roger had been charged for two payments that day – each for £5,000 – going to a recipient he did not recognise: ‘SQ \*Admin Skill LI’.
Roger had no idea what the payments were and immediately phoned Barclays, which provides his current account, to report them.
But Barclays would not reimburse him. Nor would it apologise for failing to stop two large payments going through that were clearly completely out of character for Roger.
Instead, to Roger’s horror, it repeatedly asked him whether his partner of 26 years had access to his bank cards.
Shaking with rage: Roger Wall and Jacqueline Foale. When £10,000 went missing from Roger’s Barclays account, the bank suggested Jacqueline had taken it
‘I was shaking with rage when I rang the bank to tell them I was a victim of fraud,’ says Roger. ‘But I was then asked if my partner had access to my bank cards.
‘It was understandable to be asked once, but on three separate occasions I was asked this question.
‘It felt like they were querying the nature of our relationship, and if I could really trust my partner of 26 years – or had been sharing my PIN. I had not.’
His partner, Jacqueline Foale, 77, a retired office administrator who lives six miles away, in Bexley, south-east London, felt hurt by the questioning.
Jacqueline says: ‘Roger is not in the best of health, and to repeatedly ask about if I might have access to his PIN was hurtful and rude.
‘The bank has given Roger a lot of sleepless nights. We are both independent with our own bank accounts.’
Barclays sent Roger a form to complete, detailing all the items in his shopping, which he filled out straight away.
But he heard nothing from the bank for ten days – during which he was still £10,000 out of pocket.
Roger says: ‘I struggled with insomnia. Nobody seemed willing to help or come up with a decision. Even when I called after hearing nothing, they could only say my case would soon be discussed in a committee meeting.
‘The only thing staff would say is my bank account was encrypted and had not been hacked and there was no evidence my Visa debit bank card had been cloned by any criminals.’
Money Mail has seen the bank statement. It states that on October 25 there was a ‘Card Payment to SQ \*Admin Skill LI’ with two separate transactions for £5,000, suggesting the payments were made at a terminal using the bank card.
SQ stands for Square, which is a payment processing company used by smaller businesses.
An internet search for Admin Skill LI indicated a potential payment for a learning programme offered on the online business networking platform LinkedIn.
But a spokesperson for LinkedIn said: ‘We do not offer any service called Admin Skill, so this does not appear to be related to LinkedIn.’
Roger has no idea who Admin Skill LI could be and had hoped his bank would investigate.
He logged the theft with the cyber-crime reporting service Action Fraud. Roger also hoped Barclays would contact Tesco to ask if its CCTV surveillance spotted any suspicious activity.
Snub: Barclays would not apologise for failing to stop two large payments going through that were clearly completely out of character for Roger
He says: ‘I cannot help but wonder if someone might have stolen my information at the supermarket – perhaps shoulder surfing, standing nearby or behind so they could spy as I was shopping.’ Barclays would not comment on whether it had contacted Tesco.
It was not until Money Mail spoke to Barclays that the bank suddenly agreed to return Roger’s money – explaining this was only a ‘gesture of goodwill’.
On the same day that Barclays finally agreed to give Roger back £10,000 – November 28 – a formal letter from the bank arrived at Roger’s home by post.
The title was intended to leave Roger in no doubt: ‘We’ve completed our investigation’.
The letter stated: ‘You recently told us about some payments you didn’t recognise.
‘We looked into them and didn’t find any evidence of fraud, which means we can’t offer you a refund… this means we can’t give you a refund for the disputed amount of £10,000.’
Roger says: ‘The mealy-mouthed response without a genuine apology seems to indicate they do not believe the money was stolen.
‘I have had no explanation why they think my PIN was shared with someone else or why it seems that the CCTV footage was not worth looking at.’
Barclays has not explained how the false payments were made – and refused to say whether his PIN was used, despite Roger being asked if he might have shared it with his partner.
A Barclays spokesperson says: ‘We are sorry to hear about the distress caused to Mr Wall by the loss of this money, as the protection of our customers’ funds is our highest priority and we take every precaution to ensure that these are secure.
‘Following a thorough review, the evidence currently available does not indicate fraud in this case. However, it is also unlikely that Mr Wall personally benefited from these payments.
‘As a gesture of goodwill, we have refunded Mr Wall the full amount of £10,000 while our enquiries with the merchant continue to determine the root cause.
‘We acknowledge the stress this situation has caused and have offered an additional £100 to Mr Wall as an extension of our apologies.’
SAVE MONEY, MAKE MONEY
4.27% cash Isa
4.27% cash Isa
Trading 212: 0.67% fixed 12-month bonus
£100 cashback
£100 cashback
Transfer or fund at least £10,000 with Prosper
4.58% cash Isa
4.58% cash Isa
Includes 12-month boost for new customers
£200 cashback
£200 cashback
10% cashback on investments, up to £200
£20 gift card
£20 gift card
Hold £1,000 after three months in Plum’s cash Isa
Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence. Terms and conditions apply on all offers.
