Upheld: promotional reward not paid / ambiguous terms and conditions complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A referred his daughter to Revolut for a £50 referral reward. His daughter's first application in 2024 was aborted after 20 minutes during verification because she was a minor. When she reapplied in 2025 as an adult, she successfully opened an account and made purchases, but Revolut refused to pay the reward, claiming she had previously signed up. The ombudsman found Revolut's referral terms ambiguous because they do not clearly define what constitutes a previous 'sign up' versus a failed application, and ruled that the ambiguity should be interpreted in favour of the customer. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Revolut to pay Mr A £50.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the referral terms ambiguous because they do not clearly define what constitutes an 'open account' or 'signing up for an account'. The distinction between a failed application that was aborted during verification and a successful account sign-up is not clearly explained in the terms. When contract terms are capable of multiple interpretations, they should be interpreted in favour of the customer. Mr A had a legitimate expectation of receiving the reward based on the information available to him, particularly since the first application never progressed beyond initial verification and the applicant was ineligible at that time due to age.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website