Revolut and Fraud

datz

marxbrothers said:

Sorry should have pointed out no I'm not in Dubai and I've never been, I'm in the UK and they rejected the claim as they said something about the purchases being made with Apple Pay (I don't own any Apple Products)

Short version:

Someone has obtained your card details and been able to add your card to their device, and then use the mobile wallet on that that device to make payments (either in person or online).

The longer version:

The reason this type of fraud is lucrative is because once a card is authorized on a device (for use with a mobile wallet), then repeated transactions can be made without additional authentication beyond that done locally on the device (face id, fingerprint, pin at the time of payment). Financial institutions and payment processors tend to view these types of payments with a greater level of trust.

To add a card to a mobile wallet requires the card details (16 digit number, expiry and cvv/cvc), as well as 2fa (usually via sms or app). There are no additional checks to ensure the Apple or Google account belongs to you.

Assuming you were not complicit, then the probability is that your card details were likely phished and you disclosed your 2fa code enabling the addition of your card to a device under their control. For example, you may have clicked on a link (sms, email, google ad, facebook, etc) taking you to a malicious site eventually prompting you for payment details... followed by a fake 3D Secure prompt where you may have entered the 2fa code that was sent to you (something people frequently do without giving it a second thought). Some phones are even set up to helpfully autofill any verification codes sent to you into the appropriate field.

You may have been negligent, but the bar is set higher in that you need to have acted "grossly" negligent. Financial providers are now wiser to this type of fraud and are expected to have controls in place, so should just refund. But Revolut like to be difficult over responsibility for this type of fraud, so raise a formal complaint with them and escalate to the Ombudsman if necessary.

friolento

datz said:

You may have been negligent, but the bar is set higher in that you need to have acted "grossly" negligent. 

It was either Monzo or Revolut, or both, who very recently changed their T&Cs from stating "grossly negligent" to "negligent".

Shakin_Steve

friolento said:

datz said:

You may have been negligent, but the bar is set higher in that you need to have acted "grossly" negligent. 

It was either Monzo or Revolut, or both, who very recently changed their T&Cs from stating "grossly negligent" to "negligent".

Monzo and Revolut will have to prove gross negligence, as per the fca wording. It really doesn't matter a hoot what terms they use, in the event of a complaint, the FOS will find in favour of the customer.
It's a bit like companies who put up notices saying "We accept no liability for......in the event of....". If the law says different, they have to accept liability.

friolento

Shakin_Steve said:

friolento said:

datz said:

You may have been negligent, but the bar is set higher in that you need to have acted "grossly" negligent. 

It was either Monzo or Revolut, or both, who very recently changed their T&Cs from stating "grossly negligent" to "negligent".

Monzo and Revolut will have to prove gross negligence, as per the fca wording. It really doesn't matter a hoot what terms they use, in the event of a complaint, the FOS will find in favour of the customer.
It's a bit like companies who put up notices saying "We accept no liability for......in the event of....". If the law says different, they have to accept liability.

The terms are currently under review, in the context of the new regulations for APP scams which will soon come into force. I doubt that any bank would intentionally breach their licence terms in their T&Cs

Shakin_Steve

friolento said:

Shakin_Steve said:

friolento said:

datz said:

You may have been negligent, but the bar is set higher in that you need to have acted "grossly" negligent. 

It was either Monzo or Revolut, or both, who very recently changed their T&Cs from stating "grossly negligent" to "negligent".

Monzo and Revolut will have to prove gross negligence, as per the fca wording. It really doesn't matter a hoot what terms they use, in the event of a complaint, the FOS will find in favour of the customer.
It's a bit like companies who put up notices saying "We accept no liability for......in the event of....". If the law says different, they have to accept liability.

The terms are currently under review, in the context of the new regulations for APP scams which will soon come into force. I doubt that any bank would intentionally breach their licence terms in their T&Cs

Maybe, but the terms on the fca website are current, not under review. As this happened under the present T&C's, I would imagine that they're the ones that count. I am prepared to be proven wrong here, however, I doubt we'll ever find out what the outcome of this particular case is, as the OP seems to have gone dark.