Not upheld: unauthorised transaction / refusal to reimburse disputed payment complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H, as director of company T, complained that Revolut refused to refund a £1,100 Apple Pay payment he claimed was unauthorised. He initially stated he had no involvement and had not shared any authentication details. After the FOS investigator found Revolut's technical evidence more persuasive, Mr H changed his account, claiming he had been scammed into sharing the OTP by someone impersonating Revolut. The ombudsman found this fundamental change in narrative undermined the credibility of Mr H's evidence and, lacking sufficient corroborating documentation, declined to uphold the complaint or require Revolut to refund the payment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr H's evidence was unreliable due to a fundamental change in his account of events. He initially denied any involvement and stated he had not received OTP messages, but later claimed he had shared the OTP after being tricked by someone impersonating Revolut. The ombudsman noted this was not merely a 'fuller explanation' but a complete reversal of his position. The limited documentary evidence (screenshots of calls) was insufficient to overcome concerns about the reliability of Mr H's testimony, particularly given the significant time gap (August to November 2025) during which he maintained his original account. The ombudsman could not fairly require Revolut to refund based largely on testimony that appeared to have changed to fit a narrative where compensation would be awarded.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website