Not upheld: payment delay and fraud prevention procedures complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Revolut unreasonably blocked a £150,000 payment to his newly added niece for 24 hours despite him completing security checks, and subsequently blocked a transfer to his own account for the same period. He sought compensation for lost interest and argued there should be a way to override such delays. Revolut maintained that its automated 24-hour hold is a standard security measure applied to all customers for high-value transactions to new beneficiaries, and is permitted under its terms and conditions. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's position, finding that the automated fraud prevention system was reasonable given the transaction amount and new beneficiary status, and that it would not be fair or practical to allow customers to bypass such safeguards through additional verification or indemnities.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Revolut's use of automated fraud prevention systems to flag high-value transactions to new beneficiaries was reasonable and not unfair. The ombudsman noted that it is not the FOS's role to dictate how businesses should operate their fraud prevention systems, but rather to assess whether the firm treated the customer fairly. Given the increase in fraud and scams in banking, the 24-hour hold was a proportionate security measure applied consistently to all customers. The ombudsman rejected the suggestion that customers should be able to bypass safeguards through additional identification or indemnities, as this would undermine the consistency and effectiveness of automated fraud prevention. Since the payment was eventually released and no significant financial loss was demonstrated, the ombudsman found Revolut acted in line with its terms and obligations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website