Not upheld: refusal to reimburse payments in alleged scam complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H paid Company A for renovation design and planning services but later became dissatisfied, alleging misrepresentation, and requested Revolut reimburse the payments as a scam. Revolut declined, classifying it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that the payments do not meet the Faster Payments Scheme reimbursement rules' definition of an APP scam because Company A is a legitimate supplier with aligned intentions at the time of payment, and the dispute is a private civil matter between the consumer and supplier rather than involving fraud or dishonesty.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FPS reimbursement rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. The ombudsman found that both Mr H and Company A had aligned purposes at the time of payment - Company A intended to supply renovation services and Mr H paid for those services. Although Company A may not have supplied everything paid for, the supply of some goods and services demonstrated their intention to perform the work. Company A is a legitimate supplier (evidenced by architect registrations, company longevity, and positive reviews), and the FPS rules explicitly exclude private civil disputes between consumers and legitimate suppliers. Therefore, the payments do not meet the APP scam definition, and Revolut had no obligation to intervene or reimburse.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website