Not upheld: chargeback handling and failure to identify vulnerability complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F complained that Revolut failed to refund approximately £6,000 in gambling transactions made via her debit card in late 2025 and early 2026. She argued that Revolut should have raised chargebacks, that the two refunds she received set a legal precedent for all transactions, and that Revolut failed to identify her vulnerability and provide adequate safeguards. The ombudsman found that Revolut could not raise chargebacks because card scheme rules explicitly exclude gambling transactions from dispute rights, that the two refunds likely came from the merchant rather than successful chargebacks and did not create a legal precedent, and that Revolut had no reason to be aware of Miss F's vulnerabilities until she disclosed them in January 2026. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Revolut could not raise chargebacks for gambling transactions because both card schemes explicitly prohibit chargebacks for gambling-related transactions, and these rules cannot be altered by Revolut. The ombudsman found that Revolut was not aware of Miss F's vulnerabilities prior to January 2026, and that her account showed no signs of financial harm that would trigger manual review or algorithmic alerts. The ombudsman concluded that the two refunds Miss F received did not set a legal precedent requiring refunds for all disputed transactions, as those refunds appeared to come from the merchant rather than successful chargebacks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website