Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against Revolut

Decision detail

Summary

Ms L fell victim to a sophisticated scam where fraudsters posing as her bank and the banking regulator instructed her to transfer £11,306 through her Revolut account to a new joint account. Although Revolut and her other bank sent warnings, Ms L disclosed these to the fraudster and was persuaded to disregard them. Revolut refunded the payment less a £100 excess under the Reimbursement Rules. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have conducted more probing intervention, such intervention would not have prevented the scam as Ms L would have disclosed it to the fraudster and followed their instructions to override it. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut should have identified heightened fraud risk and conducted more probing intervention, the ombudsman found that Ms L would likely have disclosed any intervention to the fraudster and followed their instructions to override it, as she did with the warnings she received. Therefore, no intervention would have prevented the scam. Revolut fairly applied the £100 excess as Ms L was not vulnerable in a way that materially affected her ability to protect herself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website