A
confused 80-year-old with
advanced Parkinson’s disease
lost £240,000 to fraudsters
despite warning his bank
and police that he feared he
was being scammed.
Tony Dunwoodie from
Darlington, who is cared for
by his wife, Patricia, 84, had
transferred about £122,000
to scammers’ accounts in Estonia and
Cyprus between November 2019 and
March 2020. He made more than 20
transactions before he reported his con-
cerns to Barclays and Action Fraud, the
scam reporting service.
His family want to know why the bank
allowed a further £117,000 to be sent in
another ten transactions during the next
three months. At the time Barclays said it
had detected nothing unusual, and so
refused to offer a refund despite the bank
being a signatory to an industry code of
practice that says banks should offer
redress to fraud victims.
Dunwoodie hadn’t told Barclays that he
had dementia linked to his condition,
which was diagnosed in 2009. But the
case still cuts to the heart of a legal wran-
gle engulfing banks over the duty of care
they have to customers. The debate
centres on whether a bank’s principal
responsibility is to carry out an instruc-
tion given by a customer or to protect that
customer from being scammed.
Banks have a duty to exercise reasona-
ble care and skill when following custom-
ers’ instructions, which includes not
making payments if there are reasonable
grounds (although not necessarily proof )
for believing that an attempt to misappro-
priate funds is being made.
In 2021 the High Court found in favour
of Barclays in a claim brought by Fiona
Philipp, a retired music teacher who
transferred £700,000 to scammers
based in the UAE. She claimed that Bar-
clays failed in its duty of care to ensure
that she was not being scammed. The
bank argued that its only duty was to
execute the payments on her behalf.Judge Russen QC said he felt “acute
sympathy” for Philipp, but added that “it
would not be fair, just or reasonable to
impose liability” on the bank.
Last month the Court of Appeal over-
turned the decision. It has recognised
that a bank’s duty of care can apply to
scams in which someone is tricked into
sending money to a criminal’s bank
account. Philipp can now take Barclays to
court.
Dunwoodie’s family argue that Bar-
clays owed him a duty of care and should
have detected the scam after he had him-
self warned that he may be a victim.
His financial habits had suddenlyTransactions were also made in euros
through the Cypriot currency exchange
firms Maxiflex and Maxigrid. They had
their permissions to offer financial
services in the UK cancelled in June 2020.
Dunwoodie initially invested £270. He
was then allocated an account manager,
who persuaded him to make largerYOUR STORY
Have you been the victim of a scam?
Email [email protected]renewable power, which you probably
are not benefiting from.
They largely do nothing to help boost
our own energy production — which as
this crisis has shown is unhelpful.
Solar is another nonsense. Why
doesn’t the government mandate that
every new house be built with solar
panels, or ask for those being
redeveloped to have them too?
Solar panels are no uglier than dormer
windows, TV aerials and satellite dishes
and almost every street has them.
Despite a need for more solar power,
incentives for having panels were cut by
government for years before VAT on
them was scrapped in the spring budget.
For years suppliers have asked us to
read our meters, then when we all did it
this week the sites collapsed under the
strain, exposing what most of us have
known for years: that their customer
service is practically non-existent.
As this unfolded Ofgem, the hapless,
hopeless regulator, said nothing.
So let’s start with a government policy
that rewards homeowners who want to
produce their own energy and force
builders to do it too; let’s toughen up the
regulator so that it stops the mis-selling
scandal of green tariffs that are not and
forces suppliers to give proper customer
service and send bills that we understand.
And when you get your energy bill,
don’t curl up in a ball and cry. Get out a
pen and paper and write a letter. “Dear
chief executive, thank you.. .”
@jimconeyA
s you read the paper, wearing your
outdoor coat, gloves and a bobble
hat while sitting in the living room,
remember to be grateful.
And each time you boil the
kettle, laboriously filling it up exactly to
the number of cups you intend to make,
you should be thankful too. And mutter
“merci” as you stuff old socks in to holey
old tights to make a draught excluder,
and when you start a full-on family bust-
up because young William has once
more left his bloomin’ lights on in his
bloomin’ bedroom. And why is he also
tumble drying one football sock?
Say it loudly: thank you, thank you,
thank you.
For the energy crisis has highlighted
one thing: the fact that the industry is a
shambles. The whole caboodle, from
regulation to distribution, needs reform.
Let’s start with standing charges that
are supposed to represent the annual
fixed costs of supplying energy, but vary
wildly around the country. In the
southwest of England, for example, you
pay about one third more a day than you
do in London. Despite most households
being free to choose who their supplier
is, network costs apparently vary in
different regions and are still closely
aligned to the prices of the former
regional energy company areas that no
longer exist. There is no transparency on
what is being charged. It is equally
mysterious when you consider that
about 19 per cent of your bill is made up
of operating costs anyway, which areapparently entirely separate to these
other fixed operating costs (and separate
again to network costs, which are 25 per
cent of your bill, and wholesale costs,
which are a further 35 per cent).
And then there are green tariffs. Last
week a reader emailed to ask: “I’ve
signed up to an eco supplier that says
they are 100 per cent renewable. How
come I have to pay more because gas
prices have gone up?”
Great question. No matter how green
you think your energy is, the same stuff
comes out of the socket. On Thursday
that was 35 per cent gas, 3 per cent coal,
14 per cent nuclear, 5 per cent biomass,
8 cent solar and 30 per cent wind plus a
smidge of other bits and pieces.
Most of the time when you buy green
or eco you’re buying dirty fuel that your
supplier has effectively offset by buying
a cheap certificate showing that it has
backed the production of someDear energy boss, thanks
for hiking my bill to £3,000
James Coney
Every new
house
shouldhave solar
panels
changed: he had not spent more than
£3,000 a month to cover his normal
expenses since retiring as a senior man-
ager for the defence company BAE Sys-
tems in 2004. But then his behaviour
became increasingly erratic in 2019,
when he started taking new medication,
his family said. He has been a Barclays
customer for about 50 years.
Barclays refused a refund because it
said Dunwoodie should have stopped
sending money after he reported the
suspected fraud. It pointed out that the
voluntary code to refund victims is not
legally binding, and that the companies
he used to send money to the scammers
were legitimate firms.
Tony doesn’t remember exactly how
the scam started or which website he
used, but he was originally lured in by an
investment in bitcoin. After he entered
his details he was called by someone
claiming to be from a company called
Nexus to discuss other opportunities.
He was guided through setting up an
account on exchangepoint.io, a website
that allows you to buy cryptocurrency. It
is part of Waypoint Ventures OÜ, which is
based and regulated in Estonia. The
companies were contacted for comment.£8.4bn
Barclays’ profits in 2021, a new record
for the bankMONEY
Follow us on Twitter @ST_Money
I FORGOT
ALL ABOUT
MY £40,000
PENSION
PAGE 12
Tony has Parkinson’s. So, why didn’t
Barclays stop him losing £240,000?
He had already sent
thousands to scammers
when he told the bank of
his concerns, but it didnothing, says Ali Hussain
tacted by The Sunday Times, however,
Barclays reopened its investigation and
agreed to refund £239,701, the total
amount Dunwoodie lost.
Dunwoodie’s brother Leo, 75, who
lives in Milton Keynes and is a retired
IT consultant, said that Tony’s behaviour
has become increasingly odd after he was
put on six types of medication in early- “The fact that Tony was acting com-
pletely erratically, by reporting a scam
and then still sending money to odd
accounts, should have raised alarm bells
at Barclays,” Leo said. “Instead, they used
his behaviour, which in our view is
caused by his medication, as an argu-
ment to refuse a refund.”
Dunwoodie had been diagnosed with
Parkinson’s a decade earlier, and his con-
dition was deteriorating. The side effects
of his medication include impulsivity,
confusion and hallucinations, Leo said.
Barclays said: “We have every sympa-
thy with our customer, who was the vic-
tim of a highly sophisticated scam. The
protection of our customer’s funds and
data is our highest priority, and we
encourage everyone to stay vigilant to the
threat of scams.”
Barclays recognised it could have done
more to support its customer and said
that it takes the responsibility extremely
seriously.
investments. He was called on a daily
basis, leading to him being offered a new
opportunity to join a “special club” that
required a higher level of investment. His
biggest single transaction was £12,862.
Dunwoodie raised his concerns to Bar-
clays on multiple occasions by telephone
in February and March 2020. He was put
through to several people, having to
explain his concerns each time. Barclays
suggested that he ask for his money back
through a scheme called chargeback. He
did, and received some money, but a mix
up led to further confusion.
Barclays paid £100 compensation for
poor customer service in April 2020, but
failed to take further action when he con-
tinued paying the scammers. Meanwhile,
the fraudsters kept ringing Dunwoodie
and convinced him to keep sending
money. Barclays allowed the payments to
go through.
Finally, in June 2020, Dunwoodie con-
fessed to his family and they persuaded
him to close his trading account and
make a complaint to Barclays. Barclays
said Dunwoodie should have conducted
more checks on Nexus P Capital, the com-
pany behind the scam. The Financial
Conduct Authority, the City regulator,
put Nexus on its scams warning list in
July 2020, about five months after Dun-
woodie reported his concerns to Bar-
clays.
The family lodged another claim using
lawyers last year, but Barclays again
refused to pay anything, saying it had
done nothing wrong. After being con-2009
Tony Dunwoodie is
diagnosed with
Parkinsons.
November 2019
He puts £270 into
cryptocurrency
firms based in
Estonia and Cyprus.
The scammers start
calling daily.
February 2020
Dunwoodie has
invested £122,000.
He contacts Barclays
and Action Fraud for
the first time to
express concerns.
March 2020
He raises further
concerns with
Barclays.
April 2020
Under pressure fromthe scammers, he
makes further
investments.
June 2020
Dunwoodie has
invested £240,000.
He confesses to his
family, who complain
to Barclays.
July 2020
The scam is put on
the City regulator’s
warning list. Barclays
rejects his claims for
compensation.
2021
The family decide to
sue Barclays. It
denies wrongdoing.
April 2022
After being
contacted by Money,
Barclays agrees a
refund of £240,000.TARGETED HOW TONY LOST HIS SAVINGS
The crypto firms
were based in
Estonia and Cyprus