Not upheld: scam claim and refund request complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Revolut should refund payments he made to an online gambling website, claiming he was the victim of a scam after his withdrawal was delayed and his account was closed. Revolut investigated and determined this was a civil dispute rather than a scam, and declined to refund the payments. The ombudsman applied the Payment Systems Regulator's Reimbursement Rules definition of APP scam and found that Mr B made the payments for the purpose of gambling and the gambling website's intended purpose was also to provide gambling services. The ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence that the gambling website intended a different purpose for the payments or that Mr B's funds were not gambled as he understood, and therefore the circumstances did not meet the definition of a scam. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Systems Regulator's definition of APP scam from the Reimbursement Rules. Under this definition, a scam requires that either the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose the consumer intended, and this must result from fraud or dishonesty. The ombudsman found that Mr B made the payments for the purpose of gambling, and the gambling website's intended purpose for the payments was also to make funds available for gambling. The ombudsman concluded that even if the gambling website dishonestly claimed to be licensed, this did not mean its intended purpose for the payments differed from Mr B's intended purpose. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence that Mr B's funds were not gambled as he understood or that his account was closed. Therefore, the circumstances did not meet the definition of a scam under the Reimbursement Rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website