Not upheld: scam - authorised push payment (APP) / recovery scam complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs K complained that Revolut should refund £7,000 she lost to a recovery scam after being contacted by fraudsters claiming they could help recover losses from a previous cryptocurrency investment scam. Mrs K made payments from her Revolut account to a cryptocurrency account in her own name, from which the funds were sent to the scammers. Revolut intervened on two of the three payments with warning screens and questions, but Mrs K was not honest about the payment purposes, stating they were for an investment account. The ombudsman found that the reimbursement rules do not apply because Mrs K had control of the cryptocurrency account she paid to, and that Revolut's interventions were reasonable and unlikely to have prevented the loss given Mrs K's dishonesty and apparent determination to proceed despite warnings. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mrs K authorised the payments and is normally responsible for them under Payment Service Regulations 2017, the key issue was whether Revolut should have done more to prevent the scam. The reimbursement rules do not apply because Mrs K had control of the cryptocurrency account she paid to. Although Revolut intervened on two payments with warnings and questions, Mrs K was not honest about the payment purposes, stating they were for an investment account rather than a recovery scam. The ombudsman concluded that Revolut's warnings about investment scams were appropriate based on the information Mrs K provided, and that further intervention would have been unlikely to uncover the recovery scam or prevent the loss, particularly given Mrs K's apparent determination to proceed despite warnings and her past scam experience. The ombudsman noted that while Mrs K's vulnerabilities may have contributed to her falling victim to the scam, Revolut was not aware of these vulnerabilities beforehand and there were no clear indications during the interactions that should have prompted further questioning.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website