Published decisions
3,373
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Revolut Ltd, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,373
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.1%
947 upheld decisions
Page summary
3,373 published decisions involving Revolut Ltd, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,373
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.1%
947 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 04 Aug 2026
How to use this page
The top-line cards show scale and outcome context. The ranked view and representative decisions show where the slice is concentrated and what the published decision set actually looks like.
Published decisions
3,373
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
28.1%
947 upheld decisions
Leading product
Banking and Payments
3,340 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Fraud Or Scam Concern
2,652 tagged decisions
Revolut Ltd appears in 3,373 published decisions in this corpus. 28.1% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Banking and Payments is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 3,340 decisions and an upheld rate of 28.1%.
Revolut Ltd's decision trail runs from 2019 to 2026. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, Revolut Ltd appeared in 230 published decisions with an upheld rate of 6.5%.
Fraud Or Scam Concern is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Revolut Ltd in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Payment Services Regulations, Disp, Fsma, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons given, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Revolut Ltd has already paid £270 to settle this complaint and I think this is fair in the circumstances.
View source decisionFor the reasons I outlined, 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 S to accept or reject my decision before 1 September 2026.
View source decisionI do not uphold Mr A’s complaint against Revolut Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 31 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 31 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the above reasons, my final decision is not to uphold this complaint against Revolut Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss D to accept or reject my decision before 31 August 2026.
View source decision