Not upheld: scam reimbursement claim under APP fraud rules complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B paid £4,302 to an estate agent for a property rental deposit and first month's rent in December 2025. After moving in and reporting maintenance issues to the council, she discovered the property had been illegally sub-let and was council-owned, resulting in her being required to vacate. She complained to Revolut seeking reimbursement as a scam victim, but Revolut and the FOS investigator rejected the complaint. The ombudsman upheld the rejection, finding that the complaint constitutes a private civil dispute rather than an APP scam under the Payment Systems Regulator's Reimbursement Rules, as the payment was made to the intended recipient for the intended purpose and there is no evidence of deliberate fraud by the estate agent.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Systems Regulator's Reimbursement Rules and guidance, which explicitly exclude private civil disputes from APP scam coverage. Although Mrs B lost money, the payment was made to the intended recipient (estate agent A) for the intended purpose (property rental deposit and rent). The evidence does not support that A deliberately set out to commit fraud; rather, this appears to be a civil dispute regarding the legitimacy of the rental arrangement. The ombudsman acknowledged Mrs B's grievance but concluded that A's potential failure to conduct proper checks does not constitute criminal fraud or dishonesty as required under the Rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website