Not upheld: investment scam - inadequate fraud prevention measures complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Revolut failed to prevent him losing approximately £13,000 to an investment scam through his account. The scam began three years earlier with other banks, but Mr O switched to Revolut when other providers blocked transactions. Revolut intervened on seven payments with on-screen warnings about common scam red flags, but Mr O provided inconsistent and sometimes misleading answers to intervention questions. The ombudsman found that Mr O had prior awareness of scams, had expressed concerns about the investment's legitimacy, and was willing to mislead Revolut, concluding that further intervention would likely not have prevented him from proceeding with the payments or using another bank instead. The complaint was not upheld and no reimbursement was directed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut identified Mr O was at risk and intervened on seven payments with appropriate warnings about common scam red flags, the ombudsman found that Mr O was willing to mislead Revolut in his answers, had concerns about the investment before using Revolut, was using his third banking provider for scam payments, and demonstrated awareness of scams. The ombudsman concluded that further questioning or barriers by Revolut would likely not have prevented Mr O from proceeding with the payments or simply using another bank instead.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website