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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss O was scammed in March 2023 when a fraudster impersonating her bank and the FCA tricked her into transferring funds to her Revolut account and confirming a £2,718 payment through her banking app as part of a fake security exercise. Revolut declined to reimburse the payment, arguing it was authorised because Miss O had confirmed it through 3DS authentication. The ombudsman found that although Miss O was deceived, she formally consented to the payment under the Payment Services Regulations, and Revolut's fraud interventions (declining initial payments, asking questions, providing warnings) were proportionate. The complaint was not upheld as Revolut acted fairly in treating the payment as authorised and a chargeback was not a viable recovery option.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point is that customers are liable for authorised payments. Although Miss O was deceived, consent under the PSRs is a formal concept focused on whether the customer completed the agreed steps, not why they did so. Miss O confirmed the payment through 3DS authentication in her banking app, which constitutes valid consent. Revolut's interventions (declining payments, asking questions, providing warnings) were proportionate to the risk presented and reasonably reassured Revolut that Miss O wanted to make the payment. A chargeback was not viable because the payment was approved through stronger authentication and there was no evidence the merchant failed to provide goods.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website