Partially upheld: inadequate implementation of gambling block and failure to respond appropriately to disclosed vulnerability complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6429481 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. inadequate implementation of gambling block and failure to respond appropriately to disclosed vulnerability complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6429481 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | inadequate implementation of gambling block and failure to respond appropriately to disclosed vulnerability |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Revolut Ltd to pay Mrs M an additional £100 in compensation on top of the £150 already paid, for a total of £250. |
Summary
Mrs M complained that Revolut failed to adequately implement its gambling block, allowing her to make transactions at offshore casinos between August 2024 and September 2025 despite having activated the block in June 2024. Revolut explained that its block only stops transactions with gambling-related MCC codes, and the offshore casino transactions lacked such codes. The ombudsman found that while the block functioned as described, Revolut should have taken additional protective steps when Mrs M disclosed her vulnerability, depression and gambling problems in August 2024. The complaint was partially upheld, with the ombudsman awarding an additional £100 in compensation (on top of Revolut's initial £150 offer) for failing to take Mrs M's concerns seriously, while declining to hold Revolut liable for the gambling losses themselves.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Revolut's gambling block functioned as described on its website and therefore did not breach its technical obligations. However, the ombudsman determined that when Mrs M disclosed her vulnerability, depression and gambling problems in August 2024, Revolut should have taken additional steps beyond the technical functioning of the block. The ombudsman concluded that Revolut failed to take Mrs M's concerns seriously enough at that critical juncture, causing her distress. While the ombudsman declined to hold Revolut liable for gambling losses themselves, additional compensation was warranted for the failure to respond appropriately to disclosed vulnerability.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,790 | 18% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website