Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent payments and recover funds complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained to Revolut after losing money to an investment recovery scam where he was tricked into sending cryptocurrency payments. Revolut intervened on 27 May 2025 with a tailored cryptocurrency investment scam warning, but Mr S proceeded with payments regardless. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened again on 28 May 2025, there was no evidence this would have made any difference given Mr S's demonstrated willingness to ignore warnings and his belief that the scammer was genuine. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding Revolut not responsible for the losses under payment services regulations, as Mr S authorized the payments and Revolut neither prevented them nor hindered recovery.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Mr S was a victim of fraud and Revolut should have intervened on 28 May 2025, the ombudsman was not persuaded that such intervention would have made any difference. Mr S had already received a tailored cryptocurrency scam warning on 27 May and proceeded regardless, indicating he believed the scammer was genuine. There was no evidence Mr S would have answered follow-up questions differently or that a payment delay would have prevented the loss. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, Mr S is presumed liable as he authorized the payments, and Revolut is only responsible if it should have prevented the payments or hindered recovery. The ombudsman found neither applied here.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website