Not upheld: chargeback handling and decision-making complaint against Revolut Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6275791 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. chargeback handling and decision-making complaint against Revolut Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6275791 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | chargeback handling and decision-making |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered or recommended. The Ombudsman directed that Miss S must pursue the merchant directly for a refund if she wishes to continue her complaint. |
Summary
Miss S purchased a defective wooden sauna for £1,181.89 from an overseas merchant using her Revolut debit card. After discovering multiple safety defects confirmed by an independent electrical report, she raised a chargeback request under Visa code 13.3 (defective merchandise). Revolut declined the chargeback after the merchant provided evidence of ongoing engagement and attempts to resolve the issues through replacement parts. Miss S complained that Revolut failed to adequately consider the safety concerns and the impracticality of returning such a large item. The Ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that under card scheme rules, a successful chargeback requires evidence of either a return attempt or merchant refusal, neither of which Miss S provided. The Ombudsman concluded that while the sauna was genuinely defective, the chargeback scheme rules did not support Miss S's claim and Revolut had acted fairly in its handling.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Ombudsman concluded that chargebacks are determined by card scheme rules rather than the relative merits of disputes between cardholders and merchants. Under Visa chargeback code 13.3, a successful claim requires evidence that the cardholder either attempted to return goods or that the merchant refused a return. Miss S provided no evidence of offering to return the sauna or the merchant refusing a return. Although the sauna was defective and unsafe (as confirmed by the electrical report), and although returning such a large item shipped internationally would be impractical, the card scheme rules do not provide an exception for impracticality without merchant refusal. The merchant's ongoing engagement with Miss S and provision of replacement parts strengthened the merchant's defence. Revolut correctly applied the card scheme rules and gave appropriate consideration to all evidence.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Limited, all decisions | 19 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website