Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B fell victim to a job scam in May 2025 where she was promised income for completing hotel review tasks but was actually being defrauded into depositing money. She made multiple payments to individuals and cryptocurrency accounts while being coached by the scammer on how to respond to Revolut's security questions. Revolut provided written warnings and automated scam alerts on approximately 15 payments but did not deploy human intervention. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened with staff on some payments, such intervention would not have prevented Mrs B from continuing because she was being coached to follow the scammer's instructions and the warnings did not address job scams. The complaint was not upheld as causation was not established and recovery was not feasible.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut should have intervened with human staff on some payments given the escalating pattern and risk, the key issue is causation. Mrs B was being coached by the scammer to respond to Revolut's questions dishonestly and to follow the scammer's instructions if Revolut intervened. The ombudsman found that even if a staff member had intervened, Mrs B would likely have sought the scammer's guidance on how to answer, and the scam would not have been uncovered because it did not match the warnings provided (which focused on romance, investment, and impersonation scams rather than job scams). Additionally, recovery was not feasible due to the use of Push to Card payments and cryptocurrency exchanges.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website