Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100

In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.

AI system
Revolut chatbot
Occurred
Sept 2025
Reported
Unknown
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Psychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Finance · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
6 claims: 5 documented, 1 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Revolut's customer chatbot, which answered a customer's requests to cash in loyalty points and stated the refund value and whether it had been processed

What Happened

The first exchange. In September 2025 the customer contacted Revolut through its chatbot about loyalty points earned through the spare change feature. Revolut said it would make a one-time refund of £22.38 and deduct the 1,119 points, and asked him to confirm; he did not answer that point, according to the ombudsman's decision.

The wrong value. Four days later he asked, through the chatbot, for the points balance to be refunded. The chatbot confirmed it could refund 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture, said they had a cash value of £1,119, and after he asked it to process the refund confirmed that it had done so.

The reversals. The same day he asked when the payment would arrive and whether the confirmation was contractually binding. A few hours later the chatbot said its information was incorrect and the £1,119 refund was not being processed. A live agent he then asked for confirmed the £1,119 refund was being processed. The next day the chatbot said the refund had not been processed, that it would now process it, and that it had issued £22.38.

Complaint and decision. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50 for the misleading information. The ombudsman found there was no doubt Revolut gave him wrong information, repeated later the same day, and that Revolut misled him on several occasions over that day. The ombudsman also held that he was never entitled to £1,119, accepted part of Revolut's argument that he had been told the correct value days earlier, and directed a further £50.

Impact. The customer told the ombudsman the financial pressure of losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising, and supplied a GP letter that, according to the decision, confirmed heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches and persistent overthinking.

Limits. The decision is the only source. It refers to a chatbot and does not describe the technology behind it. It quotes no chat transcript, and its date is not printed in the text.

Reported harm

According to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Revolut's chatbot told a customer his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed the refund, then reversed itself; the customer described substantial financial pressure and anxiety, and the ombudsman raised his compensation to £100.

Outcome

Resolved

Revolut upheld the complaint and paid £50. The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld the complaint, found the customer was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50 (£100 in total); the decision asked the customer to accept or reject it before 5 February 2026.

What remains unknown

  • The date the decision was issued (the text gives only the 5 February 2026 acceptance deadline).
  • Whether the customer accepted the decision.
  • The chatbot's technology and the chat transcript.
  • Where the customer lives.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The Financial Ombudsman Service's decision sets out what Revolut's chatbot told the customer: that 1,119 loyalty points had a cash value of £1,119, that it could refund them as a goodwill gesture and had processed the refund, and hours later that this was incorrect. A human live agent then also confirmed the £1,119 refund. The ombudsman found Revolut gave him wrong information on several occasions that day and awarded compensation for the impact. The decision calls the system a chatbot and does not describe its technology.

6 claims: 5 documented, 1 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented In September 2025 the customer contacted Revolut through its chatbot to ask for a refund of loyalty points earned through its spare change feature; Revolut said it would refund £22.38 and deduct the 1,119 points, which Revolut later described as the chatbot telling him the points equated to £22.38.

Causal attribution. Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision.

  • financial-ombudsman.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'In September 2025 Mr M got in touch with'; 'Revolut through its chatbot.'; 'It said it would refund £22.38 to his account'; 'and deduct the 1,119 loyalty points he’d earned using that feature.'; 'he was told then that 1,119 points equated to £22.38'
Documented Four days later the chatbot confirmed it could refund the 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture, said they had a cash value of £1,119, and confirmed it had processed the refund.

Causal attribution. Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision; the chatbot's own statements.

  • financial-ombudsman.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The chatbot confirmed it could refund 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture.'; 'It said this had a cash value of £1,119.'; 'chatbot confirmed it had done that.'
Documented Later that day the chatbot said its information was incorrect and the £1,119 refund was not being processed; a live agent then said it was being processed; the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38.

Causal attribution. Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision.

  • financial-ombudsman.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A few hours later the chatbot said the'; 'information it had given was incorrect and the refund of £1,119 wasn’t being processed.'; 'Mr M then asked to speak to a ‘live agent’ who confirmed that the refund of £1,119 was'; 'It said it had'; 'issued a refund for £22.38.'
Documented The ombudsman found there was no doubt Revolut gave the customer wrong information, repeated later the same day, and that it misled him on several occasions over that day; the ombudsman held he was never entitled to £1,119.

Causal attribution. The ombudsman's findings.

  • financial-ombudsman.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'There’s no doubt Revolut gave Mr M the wrong information.'; 'Revolut misled Mr M'; 'not once but on several occasions over the course of that day.'; 'Mr M was never entitled to £1,119'
Reported The customer told the ombudsman the financial pressure of losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising, and provided a GP letter that, according to the decision, confirmed heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches and persistent overthinking.

Causal attribution. The customer's account and his GP's letter as summarised by the ombudsman; the ombudsman also noted he was likely aware the higher figure was wrong.

  • financial-ombudsman.org.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'He says the financial pressure of'; 'losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising.'; 'He also gave us a letter from his GP that'; 'confirmed his heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches, and persistent overthinking.'
Documented Revolut had paid £50; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Revolut to pay a further £50.

Causal attribution. The ombudsman's final decision.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-15 from the Financial Ombudsman Service PDF (full text, two pages). The decision names neither the customer (Mr M) nor the date it was issued; it asks for acceptance before 5 February 2026. Applies to s1.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The decision is by the Financial Ombudsman Service and amounts are in pounds, but it does not say where the customer lives or where the exchanges took place; no country is recorded from the ombudsman's remit or the currency.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-15: Published as a concrete adverse experience with a bank's chatbot: an ombudsman's final decision records the chatbot's statements that the customer's points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, finds that Revolut misled him on several occasions that day, and raises his compensation for the impact.

People described

A Revolut current-account customer who asked the bank's chatbot to refund loyalty points

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the customer whose complaint the Financial Ombudsman Service decided (Mr M in decision DRN-6062372). Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#customer-service-chatbot#banking#wrong-refund-information#ombudsman-decision#loyalty-points

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-revolut-chatbot-said-loyalty-points-worth-1119-pounds-ombudsman-raised-compensation

BibTeX

@misc{2025_revolut_chatbot_said_loyalty_points_worth_1119_pounds_ombudsman_raised_compensation,
  title = {Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-revolut-chatbot-said-loyalty-points-worth-1119-pounds-ombudsman-raised-compensation}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified voice-cloning tool

Boone County, Missouri: sheriff's office says a fake-kidnapping ransom call used an AI-generated copy of a resident's daughter's voice

The Boone County Sheriff's Office in Missouri said that on Friday 17 July 2026 a resident received a call whose caller ID showed their daughter's number. A voice that sounded like the daughter said she had been kidnapped at gunpoint, and another voice then demanded ransom. The office said it later determined that the voice was AI-generated, without saying how. Deputies found the daughter safe in Jefferson City and unaware of the call. The office called it the first AI voice-impersonation call it had encountered. No suspect had been identified by 19 July, and no source reports whether any money was paid.

Medium Unidentified video tool

Brazil: scammers used AI-cloned voices and images of children with cancer in fake donation campaigns; 16 arrested in Operação Sophia

On 14 July 2026 the Rio Grande do Sul Civil Police launched Operação Sophia against a group that used AI voice cloning and deepfake to turn real fundraising campaigns of children with cancer into fake donation appeals: AI-generated child voices asked for money in videos boosted by pages such as 'Clube de Doadores' and 'Unidos pelo Amor', leading donors to lookalike sites that issued Pix codes to shell companies. Sixteen people were arrested across five states. In the campaign that started the investigation — using the image of Kelen Santos's daughter, who was in cancer treatment — police traced R$294,500 diverted, and the investigation found a financial-hub company that moved more than R$1.7 million. The family had to tell congratulating donors that their money had gone to a scam.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)

Hudsonville (Grand Rapids area), Michigan: a couple wired US$66,026.92 to scammers after a spoofed email and a phone call in what sounded like their loan officer's voice, which they and a fraud-prevention firm attribute to AI voice cloning

A married couple in their sixties buying a US$460,000 condo in Hudsonville, near Grand Rapids, Michigan, received an email on 19 May 2026, days before closing, telling them to wire US$66,026.92 for the down payment and closing costs within 24 hours. The email listed a phone number differing from their loan officer's by two digits, and the husband then received a call confirming the instructions in a voice that sounded just like the loan officer. The couple borrowed from family and other sources and wired the money. The day before closing their real loan officer sent the actual statement; the closing was cancelled hours before signing and the money was gone. The husband now believes the call came from a spoofed number using AI-assisted voice cloning; Tyler Adams of CertifID, which is working with the couple and federal officials, said someone's email in the transaction was probably compromised and that the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from social-media clips. The sender's address had two extra letters ('UnitedsMortgages' instead of 'UnitedMortgage'). Neither the lender nor the loan officer is accused of complicity. The couple later completed the purchase in early June from their mutual fund, reported the loss to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, and describe lasting apprehension and have discussed delaying retirement. CNN reported the case on 15 September 2026; the account the money went to has since closed.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)

Bay Area, California: a mother reports wiring $5,400 to Mexico during a fake kidnapping call that used a voice the mother believed was the adult daughter's, which ABC7 reports scammers mimicked with AI

ABC7 (KGO-TV, 24 May 2026) and ABC News (a Good Morning America segment, 26 May 2026) reported that a Bay Area woman received a call from an unknown number in May 2026. The caller said the woman's adult daughter had been kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel and played a voice the woman believed was the daughter's, in panic. The woman followed the caller's instructions for about five hours, feared for the daughter's life and wired $5,400 to Mexico. The woman then phoned the daughter, who said the daughter was at work, and realized the call was a scam. ABC7 states that scammers used artificial intelligence to mimic the daughter's voice, and ABC News describes AI as what the woman suspects was used. Neither outlet reports an analysis of the audio or a police finding about a cloned voice. An Operation Shamrock representative quoted by both outlets spoke of voice cloning in general terms and not about this call. ABC7 reports that Martinez police said they are investigating, and the woman said the money is not expected to be recovered. Both outlets rest on the woman's own account. The woman is described by role and the daughter is not named.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents