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

Decision detail

Summary

Ms R lost £43,110 to a cryptocurrency investment scam perpetrated by company W, which she discovered when the scammer demanded fees and taxes to release her funds. She complained to Revolut for not refunding her losses. Revolut intervened on some payments with warnings and a call, but Ms R argued they should have intervened earlier on payments two and three. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened more robustly on payments three and four, the evidence from Revolut's payment five call—where Ms R answered all questions confidently despite receiving a detailed scam warning—demonstrated that earlier intervention would not have prevented her loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that an EMI must process authorised payments in accordance with Payment Services Regulations. While Ms R authorised the payments, Revolut had a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and identify customers at risk of financial harm. The ombudsman found that Revolut should have intervened more robustly on payments three and four. However, the critical issue was whether earlier intervention would have made a difference. Based on Ms R's performance during the payment five call—where she answered all questions quickly and confidently despite Revolut providing a detailed warning about cryptocurrency investment scams—the ombudsman concluded that earlier intervention would not have prevented her loss. This conclusion was reinforced by Ms R's admission that she was coached by the scammer on how to answer Revolut's questions, meaning she would likely have been dishonest in any earlier intervention. The ombudsman also noted that Revolut could not fairly be expected to take additional steps based on vulnerability they were unaware of at the time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website