Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that Revolut held her liable for £4,150.43 in disputed transactions plus cryptocurrency exchanges that she claimed were made without her authorisation after her phone and bank cards were lost or stolen. Revolut argued the transactions were authenticated and authorised. The ombudsman found that the device used to make the transactions was the same device Miss M used to report them, was last accessed on 20 February 2026, and used biometric authentication (Face ID), contradicting Miss M's claim of loss or theft. The ombudsman concluded Miss M's testimony was inconsistent and implausible, and that she most likely completed the transactions herself. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the evidence demonstrated the disputed transactions were authenticated using biometric authentication (Face ID) on a device that Miss M herself used to report the transactions. The fact that the same device was used to report the fraud and was last accessed on 20 February 2026 contradicted Miss M's claim that the phone was lost or stolen. Miss M's testimony was found to be inconsistent and implausible, particularly her claim that she had no Face ID or passcode when the banking data showed Face ID was used. The ombudsman concluded it was most likely that Miss M completed the transactions herself and therefore consented to them.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website