Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H was scammed by an individual who posed as a supportive contact and offered a fraudulent investment opportunity. Between May and June 2024, she sent over £40,000 across ten payments from her Revolut account to the scammer's Revolut account. After discovering the fraud in April 2025, she complained that Revolut should have done more to protect her. The ombudsman found that while Miss H was vulnerable and the payments were made under false pretences, they were nonetheless authorised by her. The ombudsman concluded that the payment pattern did not stand out as concerning relative to Miss H's prior transaction history and that Revolut had no sufficient red flags to trigger intervention, therefore Revolut was not at fault.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal framework that Miss H authorised the payments, albeit under false pretences, meaning they were treated as authorised transactions. Revolut's primary duty was to execute instructions promptly. While Revolut had a responsibility to look for fraud signs and intervene proportionately, the ombudsman found the payment pattern did not stand out as concerning given Miss H's prior transaction history. The payments were not unusually high relative to previous activity, were spread over time, did not indicate escalation, and left a healthy balance. No clear scam pattern formed on the account, and there were no red flags on the beneficiary account that should have aroused suspicion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website