Ombudsman Tells Revolut to Pay £400 Compensation to Problem Gambler

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has ordered Revolut to pay £400 in compensation to a problem gambler after failing to shut down the player’s account, despite repeated requests from the player to do so.

What happened?

The player, referred to as Mr H by the FOS, was using his Revolut banking account to gamble using cryptocurrency. On May 27, 2025, Mr H contacted Revolut to inform them he had a gambling addiction and wanted Revolut to close his account, while also giving him no ability to reopen it.

While Revolut was able to provide information on how to block gambling transactions, it claimed its gambling block technology was unable to restrict cryptocurrency transactions; therefore, the information it had provided on how to block gambling transactions was not helpful to Mr H.

On June 4, Mr H contacted Revolut again, explaining his account came with a feature which allowed him to change funds into cryptocurrency and that he used it to gamble.

While Mr H understood it was possible to turn this feature off, there was no cooldown period before being able to switch it back on. Mr H enquired whether Revolut could remove or permanently block the feature to support him.

Revolut unable to help

Revolut then directed Mr H to its cryptocurrency team, but Mr H argued he wanted to speak to the welfare team, on the grounds he was struggling with his welfare and mental health. The cryptocurrency team told Mr H they were unable to block the feature permanently and could not provide any alternatives.

Mr H expressed to Revolut that he was having suicidal thoughts and asked if his account could be closed. Revolut advised the account could be closed, but that it would also be possible to re-open the account immediately. Mr H then raised a formal complaint on June 30, but this complaint was not upheld by Revolut.

Mr H then took his complaint to the FOS, arguing that while he was aware he had the options to close his Revolut account and hide the cryptocurrency feature, these were of no assistance to him, as both options could be easily reversed.

Mr H sought compensation, and following this, Revolut put a restriction on Mr H’s account on July 24, offering £100 in compensation as a gesture of goodwill. However, Mr H rejected this.

FOS rules in Mr H’s favour

Despite Revolut claiming it is possible for accounts to be permanently closed when this is Revolut’s own decision, an FOS investigator ruled they did not think the support provided by Revolut was sufficient.

Revolut appealed the degree of compensation and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision, as it argued Mr H would find a way to gamble regardless of the protections it put in place.

Providing reasons behind the ruling, Ombudsman Caroline Davies said:

“I am at a loss as to why Revolut couldn’t take the decision itself to close Mr H’s account permanently when it has the ability to do this and Mr H had requested that as a possible solution. Mr H was vulnerable, in crisis, seeking help and took the brave step in making Revolut aware of this.

“But despite this it failed to take proactive steps to provide him with the help he’d requested and was seemingly available and instead provided him with information about tools and features he was already aware of and failed to give him the attention he deserved.

"So after considering everything, I think the £400 compensation recommended by our investigator is fair and in-line with what we’d recommend in situations such as this.”