Veste

Not upheld: payment error / customer error in entering account details complaint against Revolut Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6401057 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. payment error / customer error in entering account details complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6401057
Decision date2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00
FirmRevolut Ltd
ProductOther regulated product
Claim typepayment error / customer error in entering account details
OutcomeNot upheld
Remedy£75 compensation already paid by Revolut for providing misleading information in its final response letter. No additional remedy ordered.

Summary

Mr C sent a £500 payment via Revolut to a family member but entered incorrect account details. He complained that Revolut should not have processed the payment and demanded a refund and compensation. Revolut acknowledged it provided misleading information in its response and paid £75 compensation, but maintained it was not responsible for the customer's error and that its terms and conditions do not require name-to-account matching. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Mr C authorised the payment and was responsible for the incorrect details, and that Revolut had attempted to assist by contacting the recipient and providing their details.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that Mr C authorised the payment and was responsible for entering the incorrect details. Revolut's terms and conditions clearly state it is not responsible for incorrect details entered by customers and does not guarantee successful return of money. The ombudsman found that Revolut attempted to assist Mr C by contacting the recipient and providing details. The ombudsman rejected Mr C's arguments about name-matching requirements and the relevance of police advice. The £75 compensation for the misleading final response letter was deemed appropriate.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Revolut Ltd, all decisions3,79018%
Other regulated product, all decisions52,40830%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website