Revolut Ltd · DRN-5829500

The complaint Mr E complains that Revolut Ltd (“Revolut”) has declined to refund online bank transfers he said he didn’t make. What happened Mr E has an account with Revolut. He says that he transferred £460 over two payments into his Revolut account in order to pay his rent. Within seven minutes of the first payment, the exact amount was transferred out to an unknown party. Within five minutes of the second payment, the exact amount was transferred out to another unknown party. Mr E says he doesn’t know either of the payees. Mr E says he noticed these payments two days later when he tried to pay his rent. He reported these transactions to Revolut and told them he had temporarily lost his phone on the day of the transfers and retrieved it the following day. Mr E said the phone wasn’t secured with a passcode and had his banking PINs saved on it. Revolut declined to refund the money because there were no unauthorised log ins to Mr E’s online banking. Mr E later told Revolut that the payments related to a job scam but Mr E has since said this wasn’t true and the unauthorised payments were made during the period the phone was lost. Mr E remained unhappy that Revolut wouldn’t refund him, so he referred his complaint to our service. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint and thought Revolut had acted fairly. They said this because the technical evidence showed that Mr E’s biometrics had been used to log into the phone at the time of the disputed transactions, the day after (when the phone was still lost) and on the day he reported the transactions to Revolut. Revolut didn’t respond to our Investigator’s view, but Mr E disagreed and requested a decision. He said he acknowledges he may have got some of the details wrong about when he lost his phone but maintains he didn’t have the device when the transactions took place. Additionally, he told our Investigator he has two devices. He felt the outcome was unfair because he doesn’t earn a lot of money and the funds were from a recent job. Mr E told us how these transactions impacted his ability to pay his rent and left him at risk of homelessness. As Mr E didn’t agree, his complaint has been passed to me for a 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. I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I know this will disappoint Mr E, but having reviewed the evidence, I won’t be asking Revolut to do anything further, and I’ll explain why below.

-- 1 of 3 --

Generally, Revolut is entitled to hold a consumer liable for authorised transactions, and Revolut is liable for unauthorised transactions. Those rules are set out in the PSRs 2017. In this case, the disputed transactions are transfers from Mr E’s account to a third party. Revolut has provided technical evidence that shows both transactions were completed using Mr E’s genuine device that was logged into Mr E’s mobile banking at the time of the transactions. So, I’m satisfied the transactions were properly authenticated. But that’s not enough on its own to say Revolut acted fairly in holding Mr E liable. I also need to consider whether Mr E consented to the payments. Having reviewed everything, I’m satisfied it’s fair for Revolut to conclude, on balance, Mr E authorised the payments. And I’ll explain why. Mr E says he lost his phone on 1 July. He says the phone wasn’t locked with a passcode and it had his banking credentials saved in the notes section. He thinks an unknown third party has retrieved his phone and made the payments without his consent. The technical evidence shows the transactions were made on Mr E’s genuine device. This device was also used to log into Mr E’s mobile banking both before and after the transactions. So I’ve considered if it’s plausible that a third party made the transfers without Mr E’s knowledge. While a third party could access Mr E’s lost phone, the technical evidence shows at the time of the transactions, someone logged into Mr E’s banking app with fingerprint ID. It is generally accepted that Biometric information is unique to an individual. I’m afraid I find it implausible that the person that happened to find Mr E’s lost phone also had their fingerprint saved in Mr E’s phone. I also note that this is contradictory to Mr E’s testimony that he only uses a passcode to access his mobile banking which is saved in his phone. The evidence Revolut provided shows fingerprint is used regularly. Mr E acknowledges making the two transfers into his Revolut account, which occurred less than 10 minutes before the two transfers out. Mr E isn’t clear about exactly when he lost and found his phone. But, he is clear the phone was lost at the time of the transfers. This means Mr E’s phone was lost from at least 5.48pm until 6.36pm on 1 July. While his phone was lost, Mr E made transfers into the account, which I find surprising, given he knew the lost phone wasn’t secure and could be accessed by whoever found it. Further, the account balance was zero prior to the transfer into the account, which occurred minutes before the transfers out. The third party who picked up Mr E’s phone would have to be extremely fortunate to log into Mr E’s banking app minutes after the two deposits were made. Rather, it would appear that the user of the device was aware of the deposits being made into the account. I also find it surprising that Mr E was able to retrieve his phone after it had been found by a fraudster, who’d used it to complete fraudulent transactions. Finally, Mr E has suggested he has two devices, but the evidence from Revolut shows the device ID remained the same throughout this period and there were no new or unrecognised devices added. As the device ID is unique to each device, I’m not persuaded Mr E was using a separate device to the lost device during this period. I appreciate that Mr E told us he was at risk of homelessness due to these payments which is understandably deeply distressing and I don’t wish to diminish the seriousness of those circumstances. However, for the reasons outlined above, I think Mr E authorised the transactions and Revolut acted fairly when they held him liable for the payments. It follows, I won’t be asking Revolut to do anything further here. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or

-- 2 of 3 --

reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Cheryl Dior Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --