Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed cash withdrawals complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Revolut failed to reimburse £1,500 in cash withdrawals he claimed he did not authorise from an ATM on 12 February 2026. Mr W alleged his card was retained by the first ATM, but it was subsequently used at another ATM 10 minutes later. The ombudsman examined evidence including ATM records, chip technology, PIN usage, and Mr W's account of events. Finding that the genuine card chip was used with the correct PIN and no failed attempts, and that shoulder surfing was unlikely based on the brief interaction with a homeless woman, the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr W himself made or authorised the withdrawals. The complaint was not upheld and no reimbursement was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test under the Payment Service Regulations 2017. The key findings were: (1) the genuine chip of Mr W's card was used at the second ATM, making cloning impossible within 10 minutes; (2) the correct PIN was used with no failed attempts, suggesting the user knew the security details; (3) the insertion of Mr W's second card into the first ATM two minutes after his Revolut card suggests no skimming device was present; (4) shoulder surfing was unlikely given the brief interaction with the homeless woman and the proximity required; (5) inconsistencies in Mr W's account undermined the reliability of his testimony. On balance, the evidence suggested Mr W himself made or authorised the withdrawals rather than fraud occurring.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website