Not upheld: scam / unauthorised transactions / inadequate intervention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs V complained that Revolut Ltd refused to refund money she lost in a scam involving cryptocurrency exchanges and card payments made over a week in May 2025. Mrs V initially claimed she was tricked into making the payments, later asserting her account was compromised, but subsequently confirmed she carried out the transactions herself. The ombudsman found the payments were authorised under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 because Mrs V used the agreed process to execute them, and that Revolut's multiple interventions and warnings were adequate. The ombudsman was not persuaded that further action by Revolut would have prevented the loss given Mrs V's persistence and reluctance to engage meaningfully with fraud assessment attempts, and had concerns about inconsistencies in her account of events.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs V authorised the payments by carrying out all necessary steps using the agreed process, even though she was deceived about their purpose. Under the Payment Services Regulations, authorisation depends on formal consent through the agreed procedure, not on understanding the underlying legitimacy. The ombudsman was not persuaded that further intervention by Revolut would have prevented the loss, given Mrs V's persistence in attempting payments despite multiple warnings, her reluctance to engage meaningfully with Revolut's fraud assessment attempts, and her inability or unwillingness to provide clear explanations of the transactions. The ombudsman also had concerns about inconsistencies in Mrs V's account of events, which limited the weight placed on her version of events.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website