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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S fell victim to an investment scam where she was persuaded to pay €20,700 in fees and taxes to access a supposed investment windfall of £46,000. She made three international payments from her Revolut account after being extensively coached by the scammer on how to respond to alerts and questions. Revolut intervened on the first payment but Mrs S was dishonest about its purpose. The ombudsman found that although Revolut should have made further enquiries on the subsequent payments, any additional interventions would not have prevented the loss given Mrs S's level of social engineering and her demonstrated willingness to lie to both Revolut and her traditional bank. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Revolut should have made additional checks on the subsequent payments, the ombudsman was not persuaded that further interventions would have prevented the loss. Mrs S had been subject to extensive social engineering and was being coached by the scammer on how to respond to alerts and questions. Even when her bank S intervened and called her, Mrs S lied and the scam was only uncovered when she was required to visit a branch. The ombudsman concluded that any further interventions by Revolut would likely have resulted in Mrs S continuing to follow the scammer's guidance to avoid detection. Revolut's intervention was proportionate to the risk identified, and Revolut is not obliged to call consumers or maintain physical branches like traditional banks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website