Not upheld: scam / fraud reimbursement; irresponsible payment processing complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Revolut failed to reimburse two card payments he made after being scammed by fraudsters impersonating his bank and the FCA. Although Mr L authorised the payments through 3DS authentication while being socially engineered, he argued Revolut should have prevented the loss through better fraud detection. The ombudsman found that while Mr L was vulnerable, he authorised the payments under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, and Revolut's intervention on the first payment was proportionate. Mr L provided inaccurate answers to Revolut's fraud questions and ignored relevant warnings. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut had intervened on the second payment, Mr L would likely have continued to provide misleading answers under the scammer's coaching, so intervention would not have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under PSRs 2017, Mr L is liable for authorised payments as he confirmed them through 3DS authentication, even though he was socially engineered. Revolut's intervention on the first payment was proportionate and provided relevant warnings; Mr L's inaccurate answers and disregard of warnings meant Revolut could not have identified the scam. For the second payment, even if Revolut had intervened, Mr L would likely have provided misleading answers under the scammer's coaching, so intervention would not have prevented the loss. A chargeback would have been unlikely to succeed given the 3DS approval and lack of evidence of merchant misconduct.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website