Not upheld: scam claim and APP fraud reimbursement complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss D paid £1,000 to an individual for a dog with an understood trial period for return and refund. When she returned the dog without receiving a refund, she claimed the payment was an APP scam. Revolut declined reimbursement, treating it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that the payment went to the intended recipient for the intended purpose, and any dispute about trial period terms constitutes a private civil matter outside the scope of FPS reimbursement rules for APP scams.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FPS reimbursement rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. Although Miss D felt deceived regarding the trial period terms, the payment went to the intended recipient and was for the intended purpose (purchasing a dog). The ombudsman concluded that any dispute about the trial period terms constitutes a private civil matter between the parties, not a scam involving fraud or dishonesty, and therefore falls outside the scope of FPS reimbursement rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website