Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Revolut unfairly recorded a Cifas fraud marker against him after his account received multiple fraudulent transfers in November 2024. Mr S claimed his account had been compromised without his knowledge, but Revolut believed he was complicit in the fraud because funds were withdrawn using his card and transferred to another account in his name. The ombudsman found Mr S's account implausible given the evidence, his inconsistent testimony about his missing card, and the lack of supporting documentation. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision to record the marker and close the account, finding sufficient evidence of Mr S's complicity in the fraudulent activity.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Mr S's account of events implausible because: (1) the funds were withdrawn using his physical card which he confirmed was not lost; (2) some funds were transferred to another account in his name, which would require his involvement; (3) there was no evidence supporting his claim of account compromise; and (4) his testimony was inconsistent, particularly regarding his missing card. The ombudsman concluded there was sufficient evidence to show Mr S was complicit in the fraudulent activity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website