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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss P fell victim to a job task scam and lost £2,591.06 through four payments from her Revolut account on 12 November 2025. She requested reimbursement from Revolut, which declined on the basis that the payments went to an account in her own name (not covered by reimbursement rules) and that it had provided proportionate warnings. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's position, finding that the firm's intervention was appropriate given Miss P's recent account opening, her stated p2p purpose, and the non-unusual nature of the transactions. The ombudsman also found that recovery was impossible and that Miss P's vulnerability, while acknowledged, had not been communicated to Revolut and did not reach the level requiring additional protection. No compensation was awarded for the inconvenience of submitting the claim twice.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's intervention and warnings were proportionate given that: (1) Miss P had only recently opened her account so Revolut had no historic data to identify unusual activity; (2) Miss P had selected p2p as an account opening purpose, making cryptocurrency activity appear consistent with her stated intentions; (3) the cryptocurrency exchange values and timing were not unusual or made in quick succession; (4) Revolut did intervene on the first faster payment with appropriate warnings; (5) Miss P's answers to the scam warning questions did not reveal she was falling victim to a job task scam; (6) the payments went to an account in Miss P's own name and control, so recovery was impossible; and (7) Miss P's vulnerability was not communicated to Revolut and did not reach the level of extreme vulnerability that would have made self-protection impossible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website