Revolut Ltd · DRN-6260502

The complaint Mr H has complained that Revolut Ltd won’t refund money he says he lost to a scam. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I will not repeat them again here. Instead, I will focus on giving the reasons for my 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. But first. I’m very aware that I’ve summarised this complaint very briefly, in far less detail than has been provided, and in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think is the heart of the matter here: did Revolut act unfairly or unreasonably? I would also point out that I really do appreciate the impact this issue has had on Mr H. But in reaching my decision in this case, I have to put aside my natural feelings of empathy and consider the case impartially and fairly, based on the available evidence. Firms such as Revolut have various and long-standing obligations to be alert to fraud and scams and to act in their customers’ best interests. These are predicated on there having been a fraud or scam. So, a first consideration in determining Revolut obligations here would normally be: • Was Mr H scammed as he alleged and to establish the loss he suffered. I don’t dispute Mr H’s version of events, but our service has asked for supporting evidence on several occasions. I understand that the circumstances of how the scam occurred is unusual and therefore some of the supporting evidence we would usually want to see wouldn’t be available, however I have considered Mr H’s testimony. In his submission to our service, he has said: “When I applied for the loan, I was told by them to select a generic purpose such as car or home improvement to help approval. They dictated every transfer and routing step…” And “The fraudsters used countdowns, launch windows, and messages about allocations to create pressure. Under their direction, I took a £50,000 personal loan with NatWest to increase my allocation, believing the loan would be repaid from profits.” So, this implies Mr H was in direct contact with the scammers who coached him on how to take out a loan and what to say to bypass certain protocols. But when our service asked Mr H to provide evidence of the above (the conversations surrounding the loan or that Mr H was personally being coerced by the scammer to invest) or the scam chats between him and the scammers, his representative told our service:

-- 1 of 3 --

“Mr H’ investment was made with his friend being in direct contact with the fraudsters, rather than himself.” Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr H’s testimony hasn’t been consistent. Due to the conflicting testimony it’s difficult to establish how the scam occurred and whether Mr H was coerced into sending the funds to the scammer. Given that Mr H originally said he was pressured to take out a loan and the scammers provided him with a cover story to provide for the purpose of the loan, it’s reasonable to conclude that he would have some evidence of this conversation taking place. Without it, I can’t establish Mr H was coerced into ‘investing’ and taking out a loan as opposed to him choosing to do so, as his friend had. Since then, Mr H has confirmed with our service that the scammers imposed a ‘one account per allocation’ structure , therefore as a result of this, Mr H’s friend, who I shall refer to as ‘N’, was the only one with direct access to the scammers and all instruction from the scammers were relayed to Mr H via N. Mr H has provided our service with a witness statement from his friend. And while I appreciate Mr H providing the evidence at this stage, I am also mindful that Mr H’s friend was also ‘investing at that time’ and was the individual the scammers were liaising with. Having reviewed the scam chats provided (by Mr H’s friend), on 15 September 2025 Mr H’s friend says: “I'll do my best spoke to a very old friend of mine and he asked me a question I didn't know the answer to. Can I transfer to his account once I made the profit? And am I able to withdraw twice without any issues? I promised him the returns…” It’s difficult to follow how the scam occurred or the context of the conversation as I haven’t been provided with full exported scam chats despite our service repeatedly asking for it. The only scam chats provided have been screenshots allegedly between Mr H’s friend and the scammer. Mr H has provided further extracts from the screenshots provided, but again, it’s difficult to determine who the scam chats are between, and the full context of how the scam occurred due to our service not being provided with the full chat and identifiable names and number demonstrating who the chat belongs to. From the extract of the scam chat outlined above, its not clear to me If N had borrowed money from Mr H, invested on behalf of Mr H or if Mr H was investing on his own accord. This is also echoed in other aspects of the screenshots provided. I also haven’t been provided with communication between Mr H and N which shows Mr H was following N’s instructions, as Mr H has said N was the one liaising with the scammer. It’s reasonable to conclude there would be some correspondence between Mr H and N demonstrating this, discussing promised ‘returns’ as outlined above or the instructions the scammer passed on the Mr H via N. I have also considered Mr H’s testimony about the scammers stating only one of them could have access to the scam platform and be added to the social media messaging group. I appreciate this is unique circumstances and not common practice in the type of scams we see. Usually, scammers want to have direct contact with consumers, so they have oversight of where the funds go and so they can control the narrative surrounding the scam. However, Mr H hasn’t provided any evidence of him asking N or the scammer directly about having access to the scam platform or if he could be added to the scam chats. Or any evidence from the scammer to N that only one of them could have access to the platform. Again, due to the amount he was investing, it’s reasonable to conclude Mr H would have requested this, especially considering Mr H took out the loan under the direction of the scammers.

-- 2 of 3 --

So bearing in mind Mr H’s and N’s testimony and given the circumstances of this complaint and how the scam evolved, I don’t think it is unreasonable to conclude that Mr H would be able to provide some evidence of conversations taking place, outlining that he couldn’t have access to the scam platform or that he couldn’t directly liaise with the scammer. Or evidence of N passing on the instructions or pressure messages to Mr H, and instructions on how to secure the loan. Nor have I been provided with screenshots demonstrating the scammer provided N or Mr H with where to send the funds to. Therefore, taking all of this into account, I haven’t seen anything to specifically show that the transactions in questions were carried out in relation to a scam. I’ve considered Mr H’s testimony and while I can only be satisfied that he made the transactions on his account, I can’t be satisfied that it was related to the scam Mr H has alleged. Therefore, it follows, I won’t be asking Revolut to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t 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 28 April 2026. Jade Rowe Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --