Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed payments complaint against Revolut Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Revolut refused to refund two disputed gambling transactions (£1,000 and £2,000) made at 3.50am and 4.00am on 10 January 2026. He claimed his girlfriend accessed his phone without permission while he slept and made the payments to prove gambling was wasteful. Revolut rejected the claim based on technical evidence showing the app was accessed using Mr M's Face ID. The ombudsman found Mr M's account implausible because Face ID requires eyes to be open, the passcode was not stored anywhere, and it was unlikely his girlfriend would make gambling payments given her disapproval of gambling. The ombudsman concluded Mr M authorised the transactions himself and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, distinguishing between authentication (technical proof) and authorisation (consent). While Revolut proved authentication, the ombudsman had to determine on the balance of probabilities whether Mr M consented to the transactions. The ombudsman found Mr M's account implausible because: (1) Face ID validation requires eyes to be open, making it impossible for his sleeping girlfriend to unlock the phone; (2) the passcode was not written down or stored, so no third party could know it; (3) it was unlikely someone who disapproved of gambling would make large gambling payments; and (4) the transactions were not out of character given Mr M's regular gambling payments to the same beneficiary.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website