Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / disputed transfers complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Revolut refused to refund £460 in transfers he claimed were unauthorized after he lost his unsecured phone containing his banking credentials. Mr E alleged a third party found his phone and made the transfers without his consent. Revolut declined the refund based on technical evidence showing no unauthorized logins. The ombudsman reviewed the evidence and found it implausible that a third party would have access to Mr E's unique biometric authentication, noting the suspicious timing of deposits immediately followed by withdrawals and the improbability of the scenario. The ombudsman concluded Mr E authorized the transactions and upheld Revolut's decision to hold him liable, despite acknowledging the serious financial impact on Mr E.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party who found Mr E's lost phone would also have their fingerprint saved in the phone's biometric system, as biometric information is unique to individuals. The ombudsman noted the suspicious timing of deposits immediately followed by withdrawals, the zero account balance prior to deposits, and the improbability that a fraudster would retrieve the phone and access the account within minutes of deposits being made. The ombudsman also found it implausible that Mr E could retrieve his phone after a fraudster had used it. The technical evidence consistently showed the same device ID and biometric authentication throughout, contradicting Mr E's claim of having two devices.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website