Upheld: failure to intervene in scam / irresponsible payment processing complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6347449 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. failure to intervene in scam / irresponsible payment processing complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6347449 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | electronic money / payment services |
| Claim type | failure to intervene in scam / irresponsible payment processing |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Pay P the sterling equivalent of 40,600 USD based on the exchange rate on the date the payment was made, plus simple interest using time-weighted average Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point from the date of loss until settlement. Revolut to provide tax deduction certificate if requested. |
Summary
P lost 40,600 USD to an interception scam where scammers intercepted communications with a jewellery supplier and changed the payment account details. Revolut rejected P's complaint, but the ombudsman upheld it, finding that Revolut should have intervened with human contact given the exceptional payment value rather than relying on an automated warning. The ombudsman concluded that had Revolut explained the hallmarks of interception scams and advised P to verify the supplier's details and question the change in bank details, the scam would have been prevented. Revolut was ordered to refund the full amount plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while consumers are generally liable for authorised payments under PSR 2017, EMIs have obligations to protect customers from fraud. Given the exceptional size of this payment compared to P's transaction history, Revolut should have intervened proportionately through human contact rather than just an automated warning. Had Revolut spoken to P and explained the hallmarks of interception scams, P would likely have conducted additional checks (calling the supplier, verifying email addresses, questioning the change in bank details) that would have exposed the scam. The scam was sophisticated enough that P acted reasonably in not noticing the subtle inconsistencies, but Revolut as the payment expert should have identified the red flags.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,821 | 18% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website