Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5337488 of 2026-07-03T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5337488 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Revolut Ltd must: (1) Calculate losses in GBP from and including the £6,772.17 transaction on 10 July 2024; (2) Deduct 5.54% of each payment (representing proportionate allocation of credits received) resulting in refund of 94.46% of each payment from Transaction X, approximately £17,739; (3) Reduce by 50% for contributory negligence, resulting in refund of approximately £8,869. No interest required as Mr M declined it. |
Summary
Mr M lost over £22,000 to a job scam between 9-29 July 2024 after being offered employment as an online virtual assistant requiring him to fund a work account. Revolut intervened with written warnings on 10 July 2024 but Mr M continued sending funds. The ombudsman found Revolut should have conducted a live intervention at the £6,772.17 transaction on 10 July 2024, which would likely have prevented further losses. However, Mr M was found to bear equal responsibility due to the implausible nature of the scheme, lack of documentation, and his failure to exercise caution despite red flags. Revolut was ordered to refund approximately £8,869 (50% of losses from 10 July 2024 onwards, after deducting credits received).
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Revolut was not expected to intervene on initial transactions, the pattern of spending and red flags by 10 July 2024 warranted a live intervention. Mr M had previously responded truthfully to Revolut's questions and had begun to have concerns about legitimacy, making it likely he would have heeded a direct discussion of warning signs. However, Mr M bore contributory responsibility as the core proposition was implausible, he received no contract or paperwork, was required to finance the job himself, and continued sending funds despite relevant warnings. Responsibility was fairly shared equally at 50/50.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,941 | 18% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 21,192 | 21% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 51,462 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website