Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6419855 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6419855 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr K complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service after Revolut declined to reimburse funds he lost in a job scam between April and October 2025. The ombudsman found that Mr K personally authorised all disputed payments using the agreed authentication process, making them authorised transactions under the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Although Revolut intervened on several payments through in-app questions, live chat, and telephone calls, the ombudsman concluded that Mr K provided misleading responses, consulted the scammers about how to overcome Revolut's concerns, and remained committed to the fraudulent opportunity throughout. The ombudsman determined that further intervention by Revolut would not have prevented the scam or changed the outcome, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that consent is a formal requirement based on whether a customer authorised the transaction using the agreed authentication process, regardless of whether they understood the true nature of the transaction. The ombudsman found that Mr K authorised all disputed payments and therefore bore responsibility for them as the starting point. The ombudsman then considered whether Revolut should be held liable on fairness grounds, concluding that even if Revolut should have undertaken further interventions, the evidence demonstrated that Mr K remained committed to the opportunity, trusted the fraudsters, and followed their instructions despite Revolut's existing interventions. The ombudsman found that Mr K's misleading responses to Revolut's queries, his consultation with scammers about how to overcome Revolut's concerns, and his continued pursuit of the opportunity despite warnings all indicated that further intervention would not have changed the outcome.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,893 | 18% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 20,976 | 21% |
| Current account, all decisions | 52,014 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website