Not upheld: scam / fraud loss reimbursement; failure to prevent financial harm from fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S lost approximately £5,000 to a job opportunity scam in January 2024, transferring funds through her Revolut account to an EMI (W) and then to a crypto exchange and scammers. Revolut paused two payments and asked automated questions, but Ms S provided inaccurate answers under scammer pressure, stating the transfers were to her own account. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's position, finding the payment values did not warrant automatic intervention, Revolut's questioning was proportionate to the risk, and recovery was not feasible given the crypto had been provided and funds already transferred. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 framework, noting that consumers are generally liable for authorised payments and EMIs must balance fraud prevention with minimising disruption to legitimate transactions. The payment values were not sufficiently large to trigger automatic checking processes. Although Revolut did intervene twice with questioning, Ms S's inaccurate responses (stating transfers were to her own account and denying remote access software installation) prevented Revolut from providing relevant warnings. The ombudsman found that even with more questioning, Ms S was unlikely to have disclosed information or ceased payments given her confidence in the legitimacy of the opportunity. Recovery options were also limited as crypto had been provided and funds at W had already been moved to scammers.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website