Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss N complained that Revolut failed to provide reasonable support when she was unable to login to her mobile app while abroad in June 2024, and that a one-month delay before a phone call resolved the issue caused her significant distress and inconvenience. Revolut's investigation found they had followed their communication processes and that Miss N still had access to her card. The ombudsman found that the login issue was caused by Miss N using an incorrect phone number due to a dual SIM card, not by Revolut's error, and that Miss N's choice to use an unregistered work email address despite repeated requests to use her registered email prevented proper account-specific troubleshooting. While acknowledging minor communication errors, the ombudsman concluded Revolut acted fairly and reasonably within their terms and conditions, and that the £50 compensation already paid was appropriate. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered whether Revolut acted fairly and reasonably in all circumstances, taking into account rules, regulations, industry guidelines and best practice. The key findings were: (1) the login issue was not caused by Revolut but by Miss N using an incorrect phone number linked to her dual SIM card; (2) Revolut's terms and conditions clearly set out communication methods limited to app, email, and text - no phone calls; (3) Miss N chose to use an unregistered work email address despite Revolut repeatedly requesting she use her registered personal email, which prevented account-specific troubleshooting; (4) Revolut did eventually agree to call Miss N outside their standard process, which resolved the issue; (5) while the resolution took a long time, this was primarily due to Miss N's actions (using wrong email and wrong phone number) rather than Revolut's failure to act reasonably; (6) minor communication errors were made but were not the cause of the delay.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website