Not upheld: fraud protection / scam prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs A complained that Revolut failed to protect her when she fell victim to an employment scam involving cryptocurrency transactions totalling approximately £12,250. The scammer coached her to provide false information to Revolut about the purpose of the transactions. Revolut implemented multiple safeguards including automated warnings, tailored questions, a telephone call expressing fraud concerns, and in-app chat communications. The ombudsman found that Revolut's actions were proportionate and appropriate, and that even if Revolut had intervened further, Mrs A would likely have continued providing inaccurate answers due to the scammer's manipulation, meaning further intervention would not have prevented her loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut provided appropriate and proportionate warnings, including static warnings for new beneficiaries, tailored questions, truth statements, and scam warnings. The ombudsman acknowledged that Mrs A was manipulated and coached by the scammer to provide inaccurate answers, but concluded that Revolut could not have known this and acted reasonably in relying on the answers provided. Critically, the ombudsman found that even if Revolut had intervened further on the second transactions, it would not have prevented the loss because Mrs A would have continued to provide inaccurate answers due to the scammer's coaching, given that she had already done so consistently across multiple days and through multiple communication methods.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website