Not upheld: inadequate fraud prevention and scam protection complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss L lost £7,800 to a sophisticated job/investment scam involving cryptocurrency transfers over 9 days. She complained that Revolut failed to protect her from the scam despite intervening on the largest payment. Revolut intervened on the £2,200 transfer with automated questions and a phone call, during which Miss L explained she was buying cryptocurrency for investment purposes. The ombudsman found Revolut's intervention was proportionate and timely, the explanation provided was plausible with no obvious scam pattern evident, and subsequent transactions did not escalate in a manner warranting further intervention. Although acknowledging Miss L's vulnerability, the ombudsman concluded Revolut had done enough to protect her and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's intervention on the £2,200 payment was proportionate and timely, occurring when the transaction size first increased significantly. The explanation Miss L provided during the phone call was plausible and consistent, with no obvious scam pattern evident at that point. The ombudsman noted that while Miss L may have been vulnerable due to seeking financial improvement, Revolut had no reasonable basis to question what it was being told, and the subsequent transactions did not escalate in a manner that would warrant further intervention. The ombudsman balanced the firm's obligation to detect fraud against the impracticality of checking every transaction, concluding Revolut had done enough in the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website