Not upheld: inadequate fraud protection / scam prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Revolut failed to protect him from an investment scam resulting in losses of £4,300 across two payments (£500 and £3,800) to a cryptocurrency exchange. Revolut presented new payee warnings and tailored scam warnings based on Mr A's responses to questions about the payments. The ombudsman found that Revolut's warnings were proportionate to the risks and that Mr A did not disclose the pressure and manipulation he was experiencing from the scammer, which hindered Revolut's ability to identify the fraud. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman concluded that Revolut's actions were appropriate and human intervention was not required.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's automated warnings and new payee warnings were proportionate to the risks presented by the payment amounts, frequency, and cryptocurrency recipient. While the ombudsman acknowledged that regulatory expectations require firms to look out for fraud, human intervention was not required in these circumstances. The ombudsman noted that Mr A did not disclose the pressure and manipulation he was experiencing, which hindered Revolut's ability to provide relevant warnings. Additionally, Mr A's evident trust in the scammer meant that further intervention may not have prevented the loss. The ombudsman also found no evidence that Mr A's situational vulnerability was apparent to Revolut or disclosed by Mr A prior to or at the time of the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website