Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed ATM withdrawals complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Revolut refused to refund six unauthorised ATM withdrawals made on 7 November 2025 shortly after he made a genuine withdrawal using the same card and PIN while abroad. Mr O maintained he had his card in his possession throughout and had not shared his PIN. Revolut declined the complaint, noting that the transactions used the genuine card and correct PIN with no failed attempts, and that Mr O had viewed his app between transactions without blocking his card. The ombudsman found that the evidence of the genuine card and correct PIN being used, combined with the lack of evidence of how someone else could have obtained both without Mr O's knowledge, demonstrated that Mr O more likely than not authorised the transactions, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that the use of Mr O's genuine card and correct PIN, combined with the lack of evidence of how someone else could have obtained both without his knowledge, sufficiently demonstrated that Mr O more likely than not authorised the transactions. The ombudsman rejected the theory that the card was skimmed or copied, noting that chip technology is sophisticated with no known successful copies. The ombudsman also found that the frequency and timing of withdrawals, while unusual, were not suspicious enough to require Revolut to block them, and that frequent large cash withdrawals abroad are not uncommon.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website