Not upheld: scam recovery and chargeback handling complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Revolut failed to prevent him from losing £25,050 to a travel scam between August 2025 and failed to recover his funds through chargeback. Revolut had blocked one payment and asked automated questions, which Mr H answered by confirming he knew the seller and had seen proof. The ombudsman found Revolut's intervention was proportionate and that no further interventions were warranted based on the information provided. Regarding recovery, the ombudsman determined that neither a fraud chargeback (invalid due to authorized payments) nor a goods not received chargeback (lacking evidence of a binding agreement) would have succeeded. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's intervention on Payment 4 was proportionate and that based on Mr H's answers to the automated questions, Revolut had no clear reason to suspect fraud. The ombudsman agreed that further interventions on later payments were not warranted given the payment pattern. Regarding recovery, the ombudsman determined that neither a fraud chargeback nor a goods not received chargeback would have been successful because: (1) the payments were authorized by Mr H, making a fraud chargeback invalid; and (2) there was no evidence of a binding agreement or contract between Mr H and the receiving company, making a goods not received chargeback impossible to substantiate. The ombudsman concluded Revolut could not have done more to help recover the funds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website