Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Revolut Ltd failed to protect him by allowing multiple gambling transactions between October 2024 and March 2025 without intervention, despite signs of financial distress such as frequent £0 balances and rapid top-ups followed by debits. Revolut responded that it was unaware of any gambling problems and that Mr O had not disputed the transactions. The ombudsman found that Revolut was not reasonably aware of gambling issues, that the transaction pattern alone did not warrant intervention, and that Revolut's blocking of certain transactions was proportionate, though Mr O manually unblocked them. The complaint was not upheld, as the ombudsman concluded that further intervention would likely have been ineffective given Mr O's demonstrated willingness to override warnings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut should not reasonably have been aware of gambling problems without disclosure from Mr O. The frequency of transactions and low balances alone do not constitute sufficient grounds for intervention, as customers are entitled to use accounts as they see fit. Critically, Revolut did intervene by blocking certain transactions, but Mr O manually unblocked these and proceeded anyway, suggesting that further intervention would likely have been ineffective. The ombudsman concluded that the blocks provided proportionate friction for reflection, and Mr O's repeated bypassing of warnings, in the absence of other clear vulnerability indicators, did not establish that Revolut should have taken additional action.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website