Published decisions
3,332
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Firm + product analysis
A curated public analysis of Revolut Ltd's published Financial Ombudsman decisions in Banking and Payments, including outcome context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,332
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
28.1%
937 upheld decisions
Page summary
3,332 published FOS decisions involving Revolut Ltd in Banking and Payments, with upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
3,332
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
28.1%
937 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 28 Jul 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
3,332
Decision volume in this firm-product slice
Upheld rate
28.1%
937 upheld decisions
Latest active year
2026
222 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Fraud Or Scam Concern
2,643 tagged decisions
Revolut Ltd appears in 3,332 published decisions in Banking and Payments across this corpus. 28.1% of those decisions were upheld, making this one of the strongest public firm-product slices available for search and research.
The latest year represented in this slice is 2026, with 222 published decisions and an upheld rate of 6.3%.
Revolut Ltd has a multi-year published decision trail in Banking and Payments, which makes it possible to judge whether complaint exposure has been persistent or concentrated into a smaller set of years.
Banking and Payments remains a meaningful part of Revolut Ltd's published complaint exposure, but this page isolates just that one product line instead of blending it with the firm's wider footprint.
Fraud Or Scam Concern is the clearest complaint-theme signal in this firm-product slice, which helps explain what tends to drive published ombudsman decisions here.
The product advisory layer also points to recurring handling implications, including review consumer credit act 1974 precedent (appears in 2.7% of cases), review section 75 cca precedent (appears in 1.9% of cases), review section 140a cca precedent (appears in 0.4% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons stated above I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons mentioned above, 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 Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 25 August 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 24 August 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have given it is my final decision that the complaint is upheld in part. If accepted by Mr B I require Revolut to pay him £75 compensation for his distress and inconvenience.
View source decisionFor the reasons I have given, my final decision is I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask X to accept or reject my decision before 24 August 2026.
View source decision