Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A lost money to a scam involving a fake task-based job opportunity and requested Revolut refund his losses. Revolut intervened with automated questions but Mr A provided inaccurate information, stating he was sending money to another account rather than for a job opportunity. The scammer had coached Mr A on what to say and how to bypass security systems. The ombudsman found Revolut's proportionate intervention was appropriate and that Mr A's concealment of the true payment purpose hindered fraud detection. The complaint was not upheld as Revolut could not have prevented the losses given the circumstances.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut has obligations to protect customers from fraud under PSR 2017, there must be a balance between identifying potentially fraudulent payments and minimising disruption to legitimate ones. The individual payment amounts were not concerning, but the frequency warranted intervention. Revolut's proportionate automated questioning was appropriate. Mr A's inaccurate responses (stating he was sending money to another account rather than for a job opportunity) hindered Revolut's ability to identify the scam and provide relevant warnings. The scammer coached Mr A on what to say and how to bypass security, so human intervention would likely not have resulted in more accurate answers. Therefore, Revolut could not have prevented the losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website