Not upheld: scam / fraud - refund claim complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S lost money to an investment scam involving cryptocurrency payments and sought a full refund from Revolut. Revolut intervened on the second and third payments and provided investment warnings after speaking with Mr S. The ombudsman found that Revolut acted appropriately by intervening multiple times and asking proportionate questions. However, Mr S failed to accurately describe the payment purpose as investment and provided misleading information to the Revolut advisor about not receiving assistance and not sending funds elsewhere. Because Mr S's inaccurate responses hindered Revolut's ability to display relevant scam warnings, the ombudsman concluded Revolut could not reasonably have prevented the losses and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut had obligations to protect customers from fraud, there must be a balance between identifying potentially fraudulent payments and minimising disruption to legitimate transactions. Revolut appropriately intervened on the second and third payments. Mr S's failure to accurately describe the payment purpose as investment hindered Revolut's ability to display relevant scam warnings. During the advisor conversation, Mr S provided misleading information about not receiving assistance and not sending funds elsewhere, which prevented Revolut from identifying the scam. Revolut asked proportionate questions and provided relevant warnings. Therefore, Revolut could not reasonably have prevented the losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website