Not upheld: failure to prevent investment scam fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C lost over £40,000 to an investment scam after being contacted by a fraudster on social media. She made four payments between January and February 2025 through Revolut and other providers. Revolut and other account providers intervened multiple times with warnings and questions, but Mrs C provided misleading answers about the purpose of the payments. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened more and earlier, such intervention would not have prevented the scam given Mrs C's responses to existing warnings and her apparent vulnerability to the scammer's influence. The complaint was not upheld, and no refund was ordered as the APP reimbursement scheme does not cover transfers to the customer's own accounts or internationally held accounts.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut should have intervened more and earlier than it did, the ombudsman found that such intervention would not have prevented the scam. This conclusion was based on Mrs C's misleading responses to existing interventions and warnings from multiple providers, and her apparent susceptibility to the scammer's influence. The ombudsman noted that even if Revolut had blocked payments, Mrs C would likely have used other means given the multiple accounts she used. Additionally, Revolut had no obligation to refund under the APP reimbursement scheme as the transfers were either to the customer's own accounts or internationally held accounts.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website