Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - refund liability and firm intervention adequacy complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K lost over £13,000 in an APP scam between June 17-25, 2025, after being contacted by fraudsters posing as recruiters offering a hotel review job. He set up a Revolut account at the fraudsters' direction and transferred funds to a cryptocurrency account before they were moved to fraudster-controlled accounts. Revolut issued warnings and asked questions about the transactions, but Mr K provided misleading answers that contradicted evidence of his communications with the fraudsters. The ombudsman found that Mr K was likely coached by fraudsters on how to answer Revolut's questions and that even with further intervention, he would probably have circumvented warnings through fraudster-provided responses, making Revolut not liable for the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr K authorised the payments and is presumed liable under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, good industry practice requires firms to intervene on unusual payments proportionate to risk identified. However, the ombudsman concluded that Mr K was more likely than not being coached by fraudsters on how to answer Revolut's questions, as evidenced by his inconsistent statements, contradictions between what he told Revolut and what chat evidence showed, and the pattern of his responses. The ombudsman reasoned that even if Revolut had intervened further with more warnings or different questions, Mr K would likely have reverted to the fraudsters for coached answers designed to avoid detection. Therefore, further intervention would not have made a difference on the balance of probabilities.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website