Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms V complained that Revolut failed to refund seven payments totalling £739.40 made on 20 January 2026 after she fell victim to a scam. Ms V had entered her card details into a fraudulent website following a scam text message, which allowed a scammer to initiate a Google Pay token setup on a new device. However, Revolut's authentication process required an OTP sent through Ms V's app to complete the token setup and make the payments. The ombudsman found that app access logs showed only Ms V's usual device accessed her Revolut app on that day, and she provided no explanation of how a third party could have obtained the OTP. Applying the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the ombudsman concluded the payments were authorised and that Revolut was not unreasonable in holding Ms V liable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which set out that consumers are responsible for authorised payments unless the business is responsible for unauthorised payments. The key issue was whether the OTP required to set up the Google Pay token was obtained by Ms V or a third party. The ombudsman found that the OTP must have been accessed on Ms V's own device because: (1) only one device logged into her Revolut app on that day; (2) it was her usual device; (3) it was used before and after the disputed payments; and (4) Ms V has not explained how a third party could have obtained the OTP. The ombudsman rejected Ms V's argument that authorisation obtained through fraud should not count as genuine consent, finding that consent under the PSRs is an objective test relating to the steps taken rather than the reasons for taking them. The ombudsman also found that Revolut was not required to intervene before blocking the card because the payments were not particularly suspicious—they were of modest value to established retailers and Ms V had made similar payments before.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website