Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Revolut treated him unfairly when handling his dispute with merchant X over 125 transactions totalling significant sums made between February and May 2025. Mr C claimed X was fraudulent and did not provide investment and coaching services as promised. Revolut successfully recovered 37 chargebacks totalling £3,300 but declined to raise chargebacks on the remaining 88 transactions, citing time limits under card scheme rules, insufficient evidence, and no reasonable prospect of success. The ombudsman found Revolut acted fairly because Mr C failed to provide the supporting evidence required by Visa and Mastercard rules, including documentation of what services were purchased and proof they were not delivered, and many claims were raised outside the 120-day time limit. The ombudsman declined to uphold the complaint, noting Mr C benefited by recovering £3,300 through the successful chargebacks.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut acted fairly in assessing chargebacks against card scheme rules. Under Visa and Mastercard rules, chargebacks require strict conditions to be met and must be raised within specific timeframes (typically 120 days from settlement). Mr C failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence of the services purchased, their duration, or proof that services were not delivered. The ombudsman noted that Mr C provided very limited information about the nature of services, with transaction patterns consistent with gambling rather than investment/coaching services. The ombudsman accepted Revolut's explanation that earlier chargebacks succeeded only because the merchant did not defend them, and that Revolut should not submit chargebacks unlikely to succeed. The ombudsman concluded that even if chargebacks had been raised earlier, they would not have had reasonable prospect of success given the lack of evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website