Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / disputed payments complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F complained that Revolut held her responsible for approximately £1,800 in disputed payments made on 13 November 2025. She claimed her ex-partner changed her Face ID without permission and made the payments while she was attending lectures. Revolut rejected the claim, stating the payments were authenticated by Face ID and that the app version would not allow Face ID to be changed to a third party. The ombudsman found the technical evidence persuasive and determined that Miss F more likely than not authorized the transactions, as there was no evidence of Face ID changes or unauthorized access attempts. Although sympathetic to Miss F's disclosed vulnerabilities, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to determine whether Miss F more likely than not authorized the transactions. The technical evidence demonstrated that it would not have been possible for Face ID to be changed on the device and then used to access the Revolut app as Miss F claimed. There was no evidence of any changes to Face ID or unauthorized access attempts. While evidence showed a lecture was scheduled, this did not prove Miss F attended or was absent from her device. Although the ombudsman acknowledged Miss F's vulnerabilities and expressed sympathy, the technical evidence and lack of corroborating evidence of unauthorized access meant Revolut did not treat her unfairly by refusing the refund.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website