Not upheld: General financial advice complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Revolut failed to adequately protect him from gambling-related payments despite his clear disclosure of a gambling addiction and multiple requests for payment blocks. He argued that Revolut should have refused to lift restrictions given its knowledge of his vulnerability. Revolut explained that its restriction system is customer-controlled via the app, restrictions cannot be made permanent, and it follows customer instructions to lift restrictions. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Revolut's primary obligation was to operate the account in accordance with valid customer instructions and that it should not override those instructions, even with knowledge of the customer's vulnerabilities.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged Mr G's vulnerability and clear communication of his gambling addiction but concluded that Revolut's primary obligation was to operate the account in accordance with valid customer instructions. The ombudsman found that Revolut should not override customer requests to lift restrictions, as doing so would remove the customer's rights to operate the account as wished. The ombudsman also noted that the restriction system relies on customer-initiated controls through the app and that it would not be appropriate to require Revolut to change its system architecture.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website