Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / fraud refusal complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

H, a limited company, complained that Revolut refused to refund £18,661.70 in disputed payments made via Apple Pay to Trip.com, Agoda, and Louis Vuitton after Mr S (H's director) received a scam call while abroad. Mr S claimed he did not share security information or follow instructions from the scammer, only confirming he uses Apple Pay. However, Revolut's audit logs showed that an OTP required to set up the new Apple Pay token was accessed on Mr S's device using biometrics and used to verify the token, with no plausible explanation for how a fraudster could have obtained it without Mr S's involvement. The ombudsman found the payments were likely authorised, noted significant discrepancies in Mr S's account, and concluded Revolut was not at fault for processing the payments or failing to intervene. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that customers are liable for authorised payments unless exceptions apply. The key issue was whether the payments were unauthorised. The ombudsman found that because an OTP was required to set up the new Apple Pay token and this OTP was accessed on Mr S's device using biometrics, there was no plausible explanation for how a fraudster could have obtained it without Mr S's involvement or disclosure. The ombudsman noted significant discrepancies between Mr S's account (two short calls with minimal disclosure) and the technical evidence (OTP accessed and used on his device), suggesting Mr S had not provided a complete account of events. The ombudsman concluded it was not reasonable to find the payments were more likely than not unauthorised. Regarding fraud prevention, the ombudsman found the payments to legitimate merchants in amounts not unusual for a business account, made via a new token (which itself required Mr S's involvement), did not create sufficient grounds for Revolut to intervene.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website