Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss K complained that Revolut failed to prevent losses of approximately £10,000 from a job scam in January 2025. She made multiple payments in quick succession to the same recipient via push to card transfers and international transfers, despite receiving warnings from Revolut and another bank about scams. The evidence showed Miss K suspected the scam by 23 January 2025 but continued making payments through alternative methods when Revolut introduced friction. The ombudsman found that Revolut provided appropriate interventions including warnings, payment delays, and manual reviews, and that no reasonable level of intervention would have prevented the loss given Miss K's willingness to follow scammers' guidance and circumvent controls. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut provided appropriate warnings, asked questions about payment purpose, implemented payment delays, and forced manual reviews. The evidence showed Miss K suspected the scam as early as 23 January 2025 but continued making payments through alternative methods when Revolut introduced friction. The ombudsman concluded that no reasonable level of intervention by Revolut would have prevented the loss, as Miss K was willing to follow scammers' guidance to mislead the bank and find alternative payment methods. The payments were not covered by the mandatory scam reimbursement scheme, and Miss K's vulnerability was not known to Revolut at the time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website