Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H complained that Revolut's tax residency verification process was unsuitable for her circumstances as a non-tax-resident individual. Revolut's app-based process required a Tax Identification Number and had no option for non-tax-residency status, and initially would not accept written confirmation from her advisors. The ombudsman found that while Revolut's process was inflexible, the firm was entitled to set its verification procedures for international compliance purposes and had shown willingness to consider alternative documentation. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's position that Mrs H must provide appropriate evidence she is not tax-resident in Italy, her current country of residence, as her UK advisors explicitly stated they could not professionally comment on her Italian tax status. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged Mrs H's frustration with Revolut's inflexible app-based process but found that Revolut is entitled to set its processes and request information required for compliance with international standards. The ombudsman noted that Revolut demonstrated willingness to consider Mrs H's circumstances outside its normal process by providing an alternative channel on 18 December 2025. Critically, the ombudsman found Revolut's position reasonable that Mrs H must provide appropriate evidence she is not tax-resident in Italy (her current country of residence), as her UK advisors explicitly stated they could not professionally comment on her tax residency there. Therefore, even if Revolut should have been clearer about considering documentation outside its app, it would not have changed the outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website