Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / fraud claim refusal complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Revolut refused to refund £1,425 in transactions he claimed were fraudulent, made from his current account in January 2026. Mr B alleged his phone was taken while he was unconscious at a party and his fingerprint was used to access his mobile banking without consent. The ombudsman found it more likely than not that Mr B authorized the transactions, based on the pattern of payments to gambling websites and the unusual timing gaps between transaction batches. Although Revolut had incorrectly told Mr B his refund was approved before declining it, the ombudsman found the £50 compensation for this error was fair, as Revolut was entitled to refuse the refund regardless. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found it more likely than not that Mr B authorized the transactions based on: (1) the unusual pattern of transactions to a gambling website which would require winnings to be paid to Mr B's account; (2) the two separate batches of transactions with a three-hour gap, inconsistent with typical fraud behavior; and (3) Mr B's regular prior payments to these merchants. While the ombudsman acknowledged the amounts were higher than usual, they were not so unusual as to require Revolut to intervene. Regarding the incorrect refund information, the ombudsman found that since Revolut was entitled to refuse the refund regardless, the £50 compensation was fair and Revolut should not be required to refund the transactions simply because it mistakenly said it would.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website