Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J complained that Revolut held her liable for disputed transfers made from her account between 16-18 January 2025 to her ex-husband, which she claimed she did not authorize. Revolut's technical logs showed the transactions were made using two of Mrs J's genuine linked devices, both of which required passcode or Face ID authentication and remained in her possession. The logs also revealed that each disputed transaction was followed by a request to hide the transaction from the main account view. The ombudsman found that the transactions could only have been executed with access to Mrs J's genuine devices and concluded that Mrs J likely authorized them or authorized someone else to access her account, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which allow a firm to hold a customer liable for disputed transactions if evidence suggests the customer made or authorized them. The ombudsman found that the transactions could only have been executed using Mrs J's genuine devices which remained in her possession, and that the deliberate hiding of transactions from view suggested account access by someone with her authorization. The pattern of transfers to an established payee over a few days, combined with the technical evidence, led the ombudsman to conclude that Mrs J's consent was provided for the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website