Not upheld: unauthorised payment / fraud dispute complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained that Revolut failed to refund a payment of £1,401.87 made via Apple Pay while she was on holiday abroad. She claimed she was deceived by a fraudster who showed her a £8 payment screen but processed a much larger transaction after taking her phone. The ombudsman found the payment was authorised because Miss B authenticated it using Face ID or passcode, and the regulations do not require awareness of payment amounts for authorisation. Although sympathising with Miss B's situation, the ombudsman concluded Revolut was not liable and that raising a chargeback dispute would have been unlikely to succeed due to insufficient evidence.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, a payment is authorised if it is authenticated correctly and the payer consented to it. Miss B completed the required authentication procedure by unlocking her phone with Face ID or passcode, and the payment was processed via Apple Pay. Although Miss B was deceived about the amount, the regulations do not require a payer to be aware of all payment circumstances for it to be authorised. Revolut was not obliged to raise a chargeback dispute as Miss B could not provide the evidence required under card scheme rules for a dispute to succeed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website