Upheld: scam - authorised push payment fraud / inadequate fraud prevention controls complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

V, a limited company, lost over £35,300 to a sophisticated scam where Mrs R (the director) was deceived by fraudsters impersonating Revolut and the FCA into approving card payments via in-app screens using strong customer authentication. The ombudsman found the payments were technically authorised as Mrs R clicked confirm on clear payment screens, but upheld the complaint because Revolut should have intervened before Payment 2, which was significantly out of character. However, the ombudsman applied 50% contributory negligence to Mrs R as a reasonable person should have questioned the inconsistencies between the scammer's claims that funds were secure and the visible account balance reductions shown on the payment screens. Revolut was ordered to refund 50% of losses plus 8% interest, which it had already paid.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the payments were technically authorised (Mrs R clicked confirm on clear payment screens), Revolut failed in its fraud prevention obligations by not intervening before Payment 2, which was significantly out of character. However, Mrs R also bore some responsibility as a reasonable person should have questioned the inconsistency between the scammer's explanations and the visible account balance reductions shown on the payment screens. The ombudsman applied contributory negligence, finding equal responsibility (50/50 split) was fair given the sophistication of the scam, the pressure created, Mrs R's circumstances at the time, but balanced against the clear on-screen prompts and multiple opportunities to recognise the inconsistencies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website