Not upheld: scam - refusal to reimburse losses from authorised payments to scammer complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Revolut refused to refund £ lost when she fell victim to a scam involving five payments made between April and June 2025 to a cryptocurrency exchange. The scam was part of a longer scheme dating back to February 2024 in which Miss H received funds from unknown third parties, transferred them through her accounts, and moved them to cryptocurrency exchanges, believing she was learning 'P2P trading' from the scammer. Bank B had closed her account in January 2025 after receiving reports from scam victims. Revolut had previously intervened on several occasions regarding transactions connected to the same scammer, but Miss H was not receptive to these concerns and insisted she was investing legitimately. An investigator initially recommended 50% reimbursement from the second disputed payment onwards, but the ombudsman disagreed and did not uphold the complaint, finding that Miss H's demonstrated pattern of non-receptiveness to previous interventions meant further intervention would not likely have prevented the losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss H was a victim of a scam, Revolut could not fairly be held responsible for the losses because further intervention would not likely have prevented them. The key reasoning was that Miss H had demonstrated a clear pattern of non-receptiveness to Revolut's previous interventions, was not forthcoming about the nature of her transactions, expressed frustration with Revolut's interference, and was willing to misrepresent funds as her own despite knowing they belonged to others. The ombudsman found that Miss H had become deeply influenced by the scammer and this influence persisted at the time of the disputed payments. Given this pattern, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Miss H would have proceeded with the disputed payments even if Revolut had intervened further, and therefore any additional action by Revolut would not have been likely to prevent the losses or deter her from continuing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website