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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O sent money via his Revolut account to a known acquaintance who claimed to need funds for an emergency medical procedure abroad. When the individual failed to repay and became evasive, Mr O reported the matter to Revolut as fraud. Revolut declined to reimburse, treating it as a civil matter. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that Mr O had not provided sufficient evidence to establish he was a victim of fraud, particularly given the individual was a long-established acquaintance with a prior history of repaying borrowed funds. The lack of corroborating evidence and the plausibility of alternative explanations for non-repayment meant the ombudsman could not reasonably conclude fraud had occurred.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that payment service providers can be liable for fraud-related losses, but only if the customer was actually a victim of fraud. The ombudsman was not persuaded fraud had occurred because: (1) Mr O provided no corroborating evidence; (2) the individual was a long-established acquaintance who had previously repaid borrowed funds, lowering the probability of intentional fraud; (3) Mr O's assertion that he was lied to about the reason for the loan was unsupported by evidence; and (4) other plausible explanations existed for non-repayment, such as financial difficulties. Therefore, Revolut reasonably treated this as a civil dispute rather than fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website