Not upheld: account blocking, account closure, and complaint handling complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Revolut unfairly blocked his account for 8 days following a €506,000 transfer request to a currency trading platform, despite him providing advance notice, documentation, and completing a fraud prevention interview. During the block, Mr E was unable to access favorable foreign exchange rates and incurred significant stress, dealing with approximately 39 different agents and receiving contradictory information. Revolut subsequently closed his account. The ombudsman found that Revolut's security block was appropriate fraud prevention, the review was completed promptly within the stated 10-day timeframe, communications were not deliberately misleading, and the account closure was within Revolut's contractual rights. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's initial block on the transaction was a critical measure to mitigate fraud risk, appropriate given the high value and nature of activity. The ombudsman accepted that financial institutions must operate within anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing legislative frameworks, which permit account blocking during reviews. The review was completed within the stated 10-day timeframe (8 days), and the ombudsman found no avoidable delays. While acknowledging Mr E's frustration with multiple agents and lack of specific timeframes, the ombudsman determined Revolut's communications were not deliberately misleading. The ombudsman noted that Revolut warned Mr E during the call that the payment might not go through. Regarding account closure, the ombudsman found Revolut complied with its terms and conditions by providing full notice and is not obliged to provide detailed reasons for closure decisions. The ombudsman declined to second-guess Revolut's commercial decision-making regarding whether to continue providing banking facilities.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website