Not upheld: APP scam refund claim under FPS Reimbursement Rules complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a car in April 2025 after responding to an advert he believed was from a dealership, but was instructed to pay an individual's account instead. The car subsequently developed significant faults and documentation was incomplete. Mr B claimed Revolut should refund him under the FPS Reimbursement Rules as an APP scam victim. Revolut declined, classifying it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that Mr B knew the identity of the recipient when making the payment and received the car he intended to purchase, meaning the transaction did not meet the definition of an APP scam despite the seller's apparent misrepresentation about their identity.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FPS Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. The ombudsman found that at the point of making the payment, Mr B knew he was sending funds to an individual's account and had to input those details himself. Although Mr B may have initially believed he was dealing with a dealership, the individual paid was the genuine seller of the car. The ombudsman found no evidence of intent to defraud - the car advertised was the same car received, and issues with quality and defects point to a civil dispute rather than a scam. The ombudsman cited FCA guidance stating that dishonesty alone is insufficient and that goods received but defective or not as described without evidence of intent to defraud constitute a civil matter.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website