Revolut Ltd · DRN-6237104

The complaint Mr H complains that Revolut Ltd has recorded his personal details with Cifas – a fraud prevention database - and won’t remove them. What happened Revolut closed Mr H’s account and loaded a Cifas marker against his name after they received reports the funds he’d received were fraudulent. When Mr H contacted Revolut to complain they asked him for evidence about his entitled to the funds. Mr H said the money had been sent for items that he’d sold and from family/friends as a repayment of loans he’d provided. Revolut asked Mr H for evidence of this but Mr H said he couldn’t provide any as he’d lost his phone which contained WhatsApp and SMS messages regarding the payments. In response to this, Revolut asked Mr H to contact the payers so they could send a video explaining the purpose of the payments (along with their ID and bank account ownership details). Mr H has said this information was unreasonable and impossible to obtain. In an online chat Mr H also said to Revolut that he was unsure how the transactions occurred and that his details may have been compromised whilst his phone was in a repair shop abroad. Revolut told him another device had been added to his account which Mr H says he didn’t recognise. Revolut said the Cifas marker would remain. However, in order to settle the complaint and as a gesture of goodwill they offered £100 to settle the complaint. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. She said Mr H couldn’t evidence he was entitled to the funds which he said he was expecting. However, Mr H also said his phone may have been compromised which would explain the unusual activity – even though he said he was expecting the funds, so this wasn’t unusual activity. Our Investigator put the offer of £100 to Mr H but he said he didn’t wish to accept. Mr H said this was a case of misunderstanding and that it was having a huge impact on his day to day life. As Mr H didn’t agree, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The marker Revolut has registered in Mr H’s case is a “misuse of facility”. In order to record a marker for misuse of facility, Revolut must be able to show a number of requirements have been met, including:

-- 1 of 3 --

• There must be reasonable grounds to believe that an identified fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted. • The evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. Mr H’s account shows he received payments in December 2024. In January 2025 Mr H told Revolut money had disappeared from his account and that he noticed unauthorised transactions so contacted Revolut straight away. In his conversation with Revolut in January 2025 Mr H suggests that his account may have been compromised as his phone was repaired whilst he was abroad. And in addition to this, a new device was added to his account which he says he didn’t recognise It seems that around this time Revolut decided it no longer wanted to maintain its banking relationship with Mr H so it gave him 60 days’ notice that it would be closing his account. In January and February 2025 these funds were later reported as fraudulent and in February 2025 Revolut registered a Cifas maker against Mr H’s name. In October 2025 Mr H contacted Revolut regarding the Cifas as he wanted to make a complaint. Following this, Revolut contacted Mr H and asked him to provide evidence of his entitlement to the funds of £440 on 26 December 2024 and payments of £369 and £1 on 24 December 2024. Mr H said he was expecting the payments into his account. Mr H said he’d sold some items and this is what one of the payments related to. He added that some of the funds were also a repayment for money that he had lent to family members. However, Mr H also said he said he flagged concerns to Revolut as there were multiple payments, some of which he didn’t immediately recognise. So it does seem that the two versions Mr H put forwards to Revolut differed. On one hand he said (in January 2025) there were unauthorised transactions but on the other hand (in October 2025) he’s said he was expecting the money to be credited. Mr H confirmed to our service the correct version of events was the latter. Revolut asked for evidence so that Mr H could support his testimony that he was entitled to the funds received. I don’t think this was unreasonable given that Revolut had received information to say the funds were fraudulent. Unfortunately, Mr H could not provide anything at all to support his version of events that he’d sold items or that this related to a loan. Mr H said he couldn’t provide any messages from WhatsApp or SMS because he’d lost his phone so no longer had access to these. I can see that Revolut asked Mr H to contact the payers so that they could send information to support his version of events. Mr H says this request was unreasonable and difficult for him to provide. Whilst I accept that it may be difficult for Mr H to provide this information, I’m satisfied that the previous request was reasonable and in line with what I’d expect to see in such circumstances. I do think Revolut ought to have asked for any evidence Mr H had about his entitlement to the funds prior to recording the Cifas marker against his name. However, I don’t think this makes a difference. I say this because Mr H’s version of events changed which makes me doubt his testimony. Furthermore, Mr H wasn’t able to support his testimony in any way and

-- 2 of 3 --

even if Revolut had reached out in December 2024 I think it’s likely Mr H would’ve still said he cannot produce this evidence. I say this because Mr H says he lost his first phone around 26 December 2025 although he cannot be sure. In the other complaint Mr H has with our service he’s said he was unable to provide evidence of messages despite that business asking Mr H for that information before he seems to have lost his phone. So it follows that I don’t think had Revolut asked earlier for supporting evidence that it would have been forthcoming. In the absence of Mr H being able to support his testimony and taking into account Mr H’s contradictions, I’m satisfied Revolut was entitled to register the marker with Cifas. To be clear, I’m not making any finding on Mr H’s involvement in the alleged fraudulent activity itself, just that Revolut has shown it’s registered the fraud marker correctly. Mr H has told us the Cifas marker is causing him distress and financial hardship. I accept Mr H likely has experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the Cifas marker, but as I’ve found Revolut have not made a mistake in registering it, I can’t fairly require it to remove the marker. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Marie Camenzuli Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --