Not upheld: Complaints handling failures complaint against Revolut Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B opened a Revolut electronic money account in 2016 when identity verification was not required for top-ups. In 2017, Revolut changed its terms to require identity verification for all customers due to new money laundering regulations. When Mr B attempted to top up his account in March 2018, he was unable to do so without verifying his identity, which he refused to do due to security concerns. His card was subsequently suspended, and when he requested his balance be returned in August 2018, Revolut asked for bank account details, which Mr B also refused to provide. After extensive back-and-forth communication from August to October 2018, his balance was returned on 15 October. Mr B also complained about poor complaint handling when his initial complaint attempt via chat was not recorded. The ombudsman found that Revolut acted reasonably in implementing the identity verification requirement as a response to regulatory changes, was entitled to suspend the card for non-compliance, and was justified in requesting bank account details before returning funds. While the complaint handling could have been better, the ombudsman found this was a genuine error rather than deliberate obstruction and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's requirement for identity verification was a reasonable response to new money laundering regulations and was permitted under the original terms and conditions Mr B accepted in 2016. The terms explicitly allowed Revolut to request identity information and to suspend or close accounts for non-compliance. Although the changes were inconvenient to Mr B, they were not unreasonable or a misrepresentation of the service. Regarding the return of funds, Revolut was entitled to request bank account details to ensure money was sent to the correct place, particularly given the time that had elapsed. The delay in returning funds was partly attributable to the back-and-forth between Mr B and Revolut, and partly to Mr B's reluctance to provide bank details. While Revolut's complaint handling could have been better, the ombudsman found this was a genuine error by agents rather than deliberate obstruction, and the error did not change the outcome of the complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website