Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms L fell victim to a scam in September 2025 when someone claiming to be from Action Fraud called her, cited a scam email she had received, and convinced her to grant remote access to her phone. The scammer then made seven transactions totalling approximately £5,272.80 from her Revolut account to gambling merchants and money transfer services, with two transactions later refunded. Ms L disputed the payments with Revolut, claiming she was unaware they were being made, but Revolut refused to refund her, stating the payments were 3DS authenticated in her app from her usual device and therefore authorised. The ombudsman found that while Ms L was deceived, the evidence suggested she likely shared her card details and was coached into authorising the payments, including completing authentication screens and responding to Revolut's intervention questions. Although Revolut should have monitored for unusual activity, it did identify risks and intervene appropriately, and further intervention would likely not have prevented the scam. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Ms L was tricked by scammers, the evidence suggests she likely shared her card details with the scammer and was coached into authorising the payments, including completing 3DS screens and responding to Revolut's intervention questions. Revolut's technical evidence showed that remote access screens are blanked out during active calls, making it unlikely scammers could have completed authentication steps without Ms L's involvement. Although Ms L's recollections were unclear (likely due to stress), her ability to remember passwords for merchant accounts and her responses to Revolut's questions suggested she had some awareness of the transactions. Revolut did identify risks and intervened with questions and warnings, but Ms L's answers (stating she was paying family/friends and denying being coached) made it difficult for Revolut to accurately gauge the fraud risk. The ombudsman concluded that further intervention would likely not have succeeded given the sophisticated social engineering tactics used. Since the payments were deemed authorised, they could not be claimed back via chargeback on grounds of being unauthorised or merchant fault.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website