• Dom. Mar 29th, 2026

Barclays to pay millions in compensation for IT outages impacting customers

Michael Bunting

PorMichael Bunting

Mar 6, 2025
File pic: iStock

Barclays is expected to pay millions in compensation for recent IT outages which prevented customers from banking, a new letter to MPs has revealed. The lender said it expects to pay between £5m and £7.5m in compensation to customers for «inconvenience or distress» caused by days of disruption earlier this year, according to the influential Treasury Committee of MPs. The glitch began at the end of January and lasted several days. It coincided with payday for many and the deadline for self-assessment tax returns.

Money blog: Tourists banned from driving in Spanish town

This was caused by «severe degradation» in the performance of their mainframe computer, a large computer used by big organizations for bulk data processing. It resulted in the failure of 56% of Barclays’s online payments, the bank told the committee. Up to £12.5m, however, could be paid when all outages over the last two years from January 2023 to February 2025 are factored in, the committee said.

It would be by far the biggest amount of compensation paid by a firm in the last two years. Bank of Ireland would be the second, having issued £350,000 in compensation. The committee is investigating IT problems at all banks that prevent or limit customer access.

A recurring problem

The nine top banks and building societies written to by the Treasury Committee accumulated 803 hours of unplanned outages over the last two years, they said, equivalent to 33 days. These hours were comprised of 158 individual IT failures. As a result, the bank with the longest outages was NatWest with 194 hours of failures.

The second longest period of services being down was at HSBC, which logged 176 hours of disruption.

Why does this keep happening?

As part of their inquiries, banks said common reasons for IT failures included problems with third-party suppliers, disruption caused by systems changes, and internal software malfunctions. The responses were received before last Friday’s online banking failures, which caused difficulties for millions on payday, but the committee said it would request data on the latest disruption. Barclays’ recent payday failure is also not captured in the numbers.

SOURCE

Michael Bunting

Por Michael Bunting

“I’m Michael Bunting, Communications Director with over 20 years of experience in corporate reputation, crisis management, and digital strategy. I have led teams in multinational companies and agencies, advised executives, and designed high-impact strategies. I am driven by transparency, innovation, and leveraging communication as a competitive advantage.”

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

You missed

For months, the UK has been moving towards banning under-16s from social media. Inspired by Australia’s ban, campaigners and MPs have brought the idea of a teenage ban into the UK’s mainstream, and now the government is consulting the public on what it thinks should happen. Among adults, it’s a popular idea; a YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of UK adults want to ban under-16s from social media. It’s easy to understand why; we’ve reported on numerous horror stories of parents finding their children dead in bedrooms after being exposed to harmful content. We’ve covered sextortion, child sexual abuse, blackmail, and more, all happening on social media platforms. It’s reached the point where people impacted by these nightmare circumstances have had enough; if these companies can’t be trusted to look after our children, they say, we need to take them off the platforms. But this isn’t a clear-cut case. There are many people concerned about the impact of social media on children who argue that a ban isn’t the right solution. Take Professor Sander van der Linden, a Cambridge psychology researcher who has studied the impact of social media for years. He said there is «zero empirical evidence» to support a ban, and recently wrote a piece in the science journal Nature arguing against it. «Blindly instituting wholesale bans for teens takes the ‘evidence’ out of evidence-based policy,» he argued. But he isn’t saying that things should just stay the same. In fact, he wants children as young as four to begin digital literacy education to protect them in the future and, crucially, wants social media companies to be held more responsible for building safe platforms in the first place. Girl Guides, protesters, the chief executive of the NSPCC – they all believed that social media companies should be forced to change their platforms rather than young people being forced to come off them. «These issues don’t [just] affect teenagers,» 15-year-old Imogen said. She’s a Girl Guiding advocate, one of three speaking after a Girl Guiding poll suggested just 15% of teenagers support a ban. «Someone in their 30s isn’t going to want to see the violent content that teenagers are seeing, so it’s not solving the issue.» «If we put a ban [in place], then that’s just saying we’re the problem,» said 16-year-old Freya. «It’s our fault when actually it’s their algorithms, it’s the way that they’ve made their platforms.» One protester, Hannah from Mad Youth Organise, told us her group wants companies to pay a 4% «misery tax» to fund mental health services and mitigate the damage they say the companies have caused. But the other argument against a ban isn’t about changing how the companies work, it’s about the impact on young people themselves. Prof van der Linden said the impact of social media varies between different groups of young people. Social media impact on mental health: A nuanced debate