Not upheld: unauthorised transaction and customer service complaint complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

F, a company with two directors (Mr H and Mr V), complained that Revolut failed to refund an unauthorised standing order payment of approximately £430 made by Mr V on 25 September 2025. Mr H claimed he had set spending limits on Mr V's card on 23 September 2025 to prevent such transactions, but Revolut found no technical evidence of these limits and determined the transaction was authorised. The ombudsman found the transaction was properly authorised because Mr V was a director with genuine account access and authority to make payments. Although the ombudsman acknowledged poor customer service with multiple agent transfers and standardised responses, no compensation was awarded as the service did not cause sufficient operational impact to F. The ombudsman attributed the claimed £100,000 in business losses to the breakdown in the director relationship rather than Revolut's actions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the transaction was properly authorised because Mr V was a director of F with genuine access to the account and authority to make payments at the time of the transaction. Although there was confusion about spending limits, no technical evidence supported that limits existed on Mr V's card. Even if limits had existed, Mr V had permissions set by Mr H to make changes to account profiles, making Revolut not at fault. Regarding customer service, while the ombudsman acknowledged poor service quality with multiple agent transfers and standardised responses, compensation could only be awarded if Revolut's service caused sufficient inconvenience to F's operations, which was not established. The business losses claimed were attributed to the breakdown in the director relationship rather than Revolut's actions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website