Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T complained that Revolut failed to prevent her losses from a job scam in which she made multiple payments from her account in March 2025. Revolut intervened by asking questions about the payments, but Mrs T provided inaccurate information and denied being scammed during direct engagement with staff. After Revolut closed the account, Mrs T continued making substantial payments to the scammer through alternative channels. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that the evidence showed Mrs T remained committed to the scam despite repeated and escalating interventions, and that earlier or stronger action by Revolut would not have prevented the losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mrs T was manipulated by scammers, the key question was whether further intervention by Revolut would have prevented the losses. The evidence showed that Mrs T remained determined to continue payments despite repeated and escalating interventions, deliberately provided inaccurate information to bypass safeguards, and continued making payments through alternative channels even after Revolut closed the account. This pattern demonstrated that earlier or stronger intervention would not have prevented the losses. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that Revolut was aware of or should have been aware of any vulnerability requiring different handling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website