Not upheld: investment scam - refund claim / failure to prevent fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs K lost approximately £39,095 to an investment scam after seeing an opportunity on social media and being guided by scammers through the investment process. She opened a Revolut account and made multiple payments to international beneficiary accounts, believing she was making investment returns. Revolut intervened several times with automated questions and staff calls warning her of scam risks, but Mrs K continued making payments while being guided by the scammers on how to respond. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have escalated to staff intervention earlier (before Payment 1), there was insufficient evidence that such intervention would have prevented the loss given Mrs K's demonstrated susceptibility to scammer influence and her pattern of ignoring warnings and providing false payment reasons.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Revolut should have intervened with staff contact before Payment 1, given the similar attempted payment earlier that day and inability to reach Mrs K. However, the key issue was causation - whether such intervention would have prevented the loss. The ombudsman found that Mrs K had already received multiple specific warnings about investment scams, had been warned that scammers would guide her responses, and the evidence showed she was actively following scammer instructions. Despite warnings from both Revolut and her other bank, she continued making payments. The ombudsman concluded that even a staff intervention on Payment 1 would likely have resulted in the same outcome given Mrs K's demonstrated susceptibility to scammer influence and her pattern of providing false reasons for payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website