Revolut Ltd · DRN-6256272

The complaint Mr M complains that Revolut Ltd didn’t reimburse him money he lost to fraud. What happened As the circumstances of this complaint are well-known to both parties, I have summarised them briefly below. In November 2023, Mr M received a message purporting to be from one of his other banking providers, asking if he’d attempted to make a payment that day. Mr M responded that he hadn’t and soon after received a call from someone purporting to be from that bank’s fraud team. Mr M was told that a member of that bank’s branch staff was under investigation and that his assistance was required. He was instructed to attend branch and transfer money from his account to keep it safe, which he complied with. Mr M was then passed to another caller who claimed they were from the Financial Conduct Authority. He told Mr M he would be taking over the investigation and instructed him to liquidate his assets into a bank account he held with another provider, open an account with Revolut, and transfer his assets to that account. Mr M was then instructed to purchase gold bullion which was collected from his home address by a courier. Again, Mr M complied with these requests. Mr M eventually realised he was the victim of fraud when he was contacted by law enforcement regarding payments that had been made to his account by another victim as part of the fraud. Mr M therefore reported the matter to Revolut. Revolut looked into Mr M’s claim but concluded from its investigations that it was not liable to reimburse his loss. It found that it had provided sufficient warnings and processed the payments in line with Mr M’s instructions and the terms and conditions of the account. Mr M remained unhappy with Revolut’s handling of his claim, so he referred the matter to our service for an independent review. An Investigator considered the evidence provided by both parties but concluded that Revolut, along with Mr M’s other account provider, were responsible for his loss. He therefore recommended that liability be split between Revolut and that provider. Revolut agreed to settle in line with the Investigator’s recommendations, but as this complaint was linked to another held at our service, the matter was passed to me for a final decision. On 12 March 2026, I issued my provisional findings on both matters setting out that I was minded to reach a different outcome to that of our Investigator. My findings were as follows: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 4 --

As Revolut has already accepted liability in this case, and Mr M has accepted our Investigator’s findings, I do not intend to dwell on the reasons why Revolut ought to have done more to protect Mr M from the point he made a £10,000 payment from his account on 5 February 2024. However, I am not in agreement with our Investigator’s findings regarding Mr M’s liability in this matter. Having considered the evidence carefully, I do find Mr M ought to have done more to protect himself from this fraud and heed warnings given. I would like to point out that I realise this has been an awful experience for Mr M to endure. And my intention is not to hold him responsible for the actions of the callous fraudsters who have committed this offence against him. But I must take into account what the law says about contributory negligence and apply that to the circumstances of his complaint. The ‘lure’ in this complaint involved a message being sent to Mr M on a platform his banking provider would not typically contact him on. While the profile did come up with the logo and name of that bank, I find that Mr M ought to have done more checks to ensure he was speaking with that banking provider before proceeding with any further calls. I do acknowledge that fraudsters are adept at social engineering and manipulation tactics. And I can understand that the pull of assisting with an investigation can be compelling to a well-meaning person. But Mr M ought to have heeded some of the warnings he was being provided and noticed some of the red flags that were present here. While Mr M was told that persons within the branch were under investigation—and therefore untrustworthy—, he was told by multiple members of staff over the phone and in branch that the circumstances he was experiencing was fraud. Mr M also ought to have noted that the requests being made were becoming increasingly suspicious and illegitimate; such as the fraudsters beginning the conversation with telling him a branch member was under investigation, to instructing him to lie to other areas of the bank and other financial businesses. I realise with hindsight that some of the red flags I have pointed to are easy to identify, and understand that Mr M was being carefully manipulated by the fraudsters. But I do find that Mr M could have proceeded with greater care here. Overall, and for the reasons I have set out above, I’m persuaded that it is reasonable for Mr M to share equal liability for his loss. Putting things right Mr M paid a total of £1,157,864.54 from his Revolut account toward the purchase of gold bullion, which was handed over to the fraudsters. £775,000 of this amount was from credits into Mr M’s account from another victim of fraud, as Mr M was used as an unwitting money mule by the fraudsters. Deducting this amount, and the first payment Mr M made toward the fraud which Revolut could not have prevented, the overall loss Revolut ought to have prevented is £380,189.89. Deducting a further 50% of this amount to reflect Mr M’s liability, the total amount owed to him is £190,094.95. Revolut has split liability in this case, so it can only be held liable for 50% of this amount.

-- 2 of 4 --

Therefore, Revolut should reimburse Mr M £95,047.47 of his loss. To reflect the deprivation of those funds, Revolut should also pay 8% simple annual interest on this amount from the date the payments were made to the date of settlement.” Both parties were given until 26 March 2026 to provide any further comment. As that deadline has now passed, I’m able to issue my final decision. 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. Revolut has provided no further comment for consideration. However, Mr M has asked that I reconsider my position regarding his liability in this case. He has highlighted vulnerabilities while under the control of the sophisticated and highly motivated fraudsters and has asked that his liability is more reflective of this fact. I would like to thank Mr M for his further submission and would like to assure him that these factors were taken into consideration when reaching my provisional findings. I would like to take this opportunity to explain how I considered these factors in greater detail. I do accept that Mr M was more susceptible to fraud, being considered an ‘older old’ consumer at the time, as defined in the Financial Conduct Authorities’ guidance on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers. But Mr M’s age does not automatically make him vulnerable or less able to protect himself from fraud. As I have already touched upon in my findings in both this matter, and the linked complaint Mr M has against his regular banking provider, I don’t think any vulnerability would have been reasonably identifiable at the time he was making the payments. Mr M was clearly of sound mind when being probed as to the purpose of the payments on several occasions. He was able to answer questions confidently and astutely, and was coherent and believable in his responses. Mr M also did not seem to lack any understanding of the warnings given to him throughout. I have not seen any evidence that would suggest Mr M lacked mental capacity at the time or was in circumstances that limited his ability to protect himself from the fraud being committed against him. I have already acknowledged that the fraudsters had meticulously manipulated Mr M, as they are well-adept at doing. And I realise Mr M, as a well-meaning person, thought he was assisting authorities with an investigation while protecting his money. But these are the very reasons why I do not consider Mr M more liable than his banking service providers for the loss he has suffered. Equally, I must acknowledge that efforts were made on several occasions by Mr M’s regular banking provider to intervene and protect him from harm. Mr M was provided with clear and concise warnings throughout that were identical to the circumstances he was in fact experiencing. And while Revolut ought to have gone further than it did at a point, I cannot disregard the effort that was made, or that Mr M continued to make payments despite these warnings and interventions. For these reasons, I remain of the opinion that it is reasonable for Mr M to be held partly liable for his loss in the circumstances. And I believe a 50% reduction in redress is fair when considering what I have set out above. Again, I would like to reiterate that my findings are not intended to lay blame on Mr M for the

-- 3 of 4 --

callous actions of the fraudster, but to acknowledge that all parties ought to have done more here to protect Mr M in the circumstances of this complaint, including Mr M himself. Putting things right Revolut should reimburse Mr M £95,047.47 of his loss. To reflect the deprivation of those funds, Revolut should also pay 8% simple annual interest on this amount from the date the payments were made to the date of settlement My final decision For the reasons I have given above, I uphold this complaint and direct Revolut Ltd to settle this complaint as I have set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Stephen Westlake Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --