A Revolut user encounters ‘evasive' customer service after €1,850 fraud
Vodafone
Ireland to report poor wifi and was promised a call back from a technician.
The following day the call she was expecting came – or so she thought – but what happened next has left her traumatised and substantially poorer.
The caller referenced the wifi issue 'and said she was eligible for a refund,' her son writes. 'She was sent a text link and asked to click it to 'verify' the refund.'
She did as she was asked to do by the person claiming to be from Vodafone but after following the link and inputting some key details her banking app was compromised, her
Revolut
account remotely accessed and €1,850 sent to a sterling account in the UK.
READ MORE
'She immediately reported it to Revolut, Vodafone, and An Garda Síochána, submitting screenshots of all the suspicious activity, a signed statement and the full context of the scam,' her son writes.
He tells us that she was asked by Revolut 'to upload this same dossier five times [and] Revolut never called her, despite promising to'.
He describes Revolut's support system as 'opaque and evasive, consisting of scripted replies and AI loops, with no clear case management or human escalation'.
He says that when he asked 'a basic admin question – what documents are needed to file a fraud report in Ireland – they refused to answer, citing GDPR, even though I never asked about her account,' he says.
[
'Sorry you lost the money': Couple loses thousands of euro of wedding savings in Revolut 'ordeal'
Opens in new window
]
He also says Vodafone has 'not yet explained how someone knew about the wifi complaint and used that to engineer the scam'.
Our reader points out that the funds 'were sent to another Revolut account, raising questions about their fraud controls and whether the funds were frozen.
'At this point, we just want honest answers and a fair process. My mum has done everything asked of her, but she's getting nowhere – and it feels like the system is built to exhaust people into giving up.'
He says that 'everything is handled by bots with repeated requests for the same info, vague timelines, and generic cut-and-paste responses. Even now, weeks later, she still hasn't received a proper update, and it's genuinely shaken her confidence in using digital banking at all. It's an insane system and the fact you can't talk to a human is ludicrous.'
He says that when Revolut wanted his business account, 'the office would receive regular phone calls and emails from reps looking for the business. How could they not provide the same support to existing clients? Has Revolut quietly built a wall between customers and accountability?'
There are two troubling strands to this scam.
Did the criminals know she had contacted Vodafone and were able to time their first contact with her to coincide with the exact time she was expecting a call from that company?
And why are the systems that Revolut have in place so opaque and why has it proved to be impossible for this family to speak to a human being or even get a sense that Revolut is addressing this issue with the seriousness that it deserves?
First we contacted Vodafone and shared the details of this scam with them. The company checked its systems and said that there was no evidence of a data breach on its side and a spokesman could not definitively say how it was that our reader – or at least their mother – would receive a call purporting to be from Vodafone less than 24 hours after she had contacted the company.
It could be simple coincidence. Scammers make many, many such calls everyday and they must sometimes get lucky.
We also contacted Revolut.
In a statement the company said it was sorry for this person's experience 'and any instance where our customers are targeted by ruthless and sophisticated criminals. Revolut takes fraud, and the industry-wide risk of customers being coerced by organised criminals, incredibly seriously. Each potential fraud case concerning a Revolut customer is carefully investigated and assessed independently of other cases.'
The statement stresses that it has 'a fervent focus on improving the customer experience at Revolut, and the protection of our customers' money is paramount to that. We provide customer support 24/7 in-app via chat because it is the most secure method to communicate with customers, and helps to ensure that they can be certain they are connected with a member of our team.
'Any reported fraud automatically triggers human intervention from our customer service team, ensuring a user's case is handled by skilled live agents with expertise in financial crime.'
It said that in recent months it had introduced in-app calls 'to give users a secure way to engage with our customer service team over the phone and help them to expose phone call scams.'
Revolut said that last year it had prevented more than €700 million in potential fraud against customers by implementing in-app calls, real-time AI fraud-detection systems, transaction limits, in-app warnings and delayed payments for suspicious transactions, biometric authentication requirements, and providing educational resources to help consumers remain informed about potential risks.
'Revolut's financial crime prevention team now represents almost a third of our global workforce and, alongside many other payments firms, we deploy a number of different interventions that are solely designed to 'break the spell' of scammers and fraudsters,' it said.
'Whilst Revolut is unable to comment on the specifics of these interventions, so as to not provide any insight that could help ruthless criminals socially engineer their victims and bypass these, we are constantly innovating and testing a range of eye-catching warnings.
'While we are fully determined to protect our customers as best we can through our fraud prevention technologies, and go to every length to ensure scams are avoided, there is no denying that fraud is an industry-wide issue that needs to be tackled at source, particularly by the telecoms companies and social media apps that are enabling this. Banks and financial institutions should be the last line of defence, not the only line of defence.'
The story does have a happier-than-expected outcome. Initially the company wrote to her and outlined its processes and the steps it had taken to prevent any suspicious transactions taking place before determining that it was not at fault and as such no money would be refunded.
A day later we heard back from our reader again. 'You won't believe this. We went from that email yesterday to my mother getting her cash paid back today.'
In a letter the company sent to her a representative said that 'upon further investigation of your case, we have identified a mistake in how it was previously handled. Subsequently, we have reclassified the situation as an account-takeover fraud and organised a full reimbursement of €1891.50 along with €150 as a compensation for the stress caused by the whole situation. The payment was sent directly to your Revolut account.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Barnardos study shows impact of cost of living: ‘Dreading next winter's bills'
Almost 20 per cent of families have cut back on, or gone without, heating in the past six months, research from Barnardos into the impact of the rising cost of living shows. The data also show that two in five are going without other essentials , including food and medical appointments, already this year. The survey from the children's charity also suggests one-third of parents went into arrears on energy bills, with 40 per cent of parents skipping meals or reducing portion size so their children would have enough. A further 28 per cent said at times from January to June, they didn't have enough food to feed their children, with 12 per cent using a food bank. READ MORE Since 2021, Barnardos has been monitoring the effect of cost-of-living increases and detailing the number of families cutting back, recording the impact it has on their general quality of life and stress levels. [ The Irish Times view on tackling child poverty: If not now, when? Opens in new window ] It commissioned Amárach Research to carry out a nationally representative survey with 1,000 parents or guardians with children aged under 18 in their care in May The study also showed that 52 per cent of parents reduced or went without social activities, while 41 per cent either cut back on buying clothing or did without. 'There's not much left for any pleasures in life. It's grim and not getting any better,' one parent told researchers. '[It ] just keeps getting worse and worse. Dreading next winter's bills,' another is quoted as saying. A further 40 per cent said they had borrowed money at least once over the past 12 months to provide their children with essentials. Only 27 per cent said they did not need to cut back or go without essential items. 'The statistics in this report show that parents and children across the country are still going without or having to cut back on basic essentials, reflecting the experience across our services,' said Barnardos chief executive Suzanne Connolly. 'Parents on the lowest incomes are really struggling, as well as those just outside the threshold for welfare supports.' She said that since the charity first started reporting on the impact of the cost-of-living crisis four years ago, 'things have remained static, despite repeated once-off Government cost of living measures'. 'She added: There must be targeted permanent supports introduced, otherwise more children will go without essentials next year.' Her intervention comes after a string of senior Government Ministers have signalled that one-off supports to tackle the impact of inflation will not be seen in Budget 2025. Meanwhile, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers and Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe are said to have made clear to colleagues that they will object to increases in current spending that outstrip economic growth. Barnardos is advocating for some specific policy changes, including increased child support payments in line with inflation, an increased income disregard for means-tested payments, and changes to tariffs for vulnerable families on prepaid energy meters.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Scarp cases up 15% in 2025 amid ‘economic uncertainty'
The number of small and micro businesses looking to restructure their debts through the small business rescue scheme has jumped by 15 per cent so far this year, with the hospitality sector responsible for the biggest proportion of cases, Azets Ireland has said. Unveiled in 2021 as a more cost-effective alternative for smaller businesses to the examinership process, the Small Companies Administrative Rescue Process (Scarp) facilitates simplified out-of-court debt restructuring for viable companies. A new analysis of the regime by Azets Ireland, formerly Baker Tilly Ireland, found that some 1,314 jobs have been saved through the process since 2021. Almost three-quarters of the 100 businesses that have gone through the small business rescue regime have survived, just over half of which were based in Dublin, the restructuring and corporate advisory firm said on Tuesday. READ MORE In 2025, 15 Scarp cases have commenced this year, up 15 per cent on the same period last year, Azets said. How the wealthy are buying up land to avoid inheritance tax Listen | 22:03 Hospitality accounted for 20 per cent of new Scarp cases this year, followed by construction and the alcohol-producing sectors, which accounted for 13 per cent each. 'In a period of heightened economic uncertainty, Ireland's SMEs are navigating challenging trading conditions, from rising costs to elevated energy costs and supply chain issues,' said Dessie Morrow, partner in advisory and restructuring at Azets Ireland. 'In sectors which are heavily export dependent, the unknown position on tariffs and how that might recalibrate the trading relationship has caused considerable uncertainty and a slowdown in key decision making. 'This can have a major impact on firms from production slowdowns to pauses in capital expenditure and is particularly challenging for firms already struggling with the high cost of doing business.' Azets Ireland, which has been involved in 33 per cent of all successful Scarp cases since 2021, wants the Government to look at ways of making the process more attractive for qualifying firms. At the moment, the Revenue Commissioners can exclude tax debts from the scheme if it has concerns about the company, if it has a history of noncompliance. Among other things, Azets said the Government should consider removing this opt-out at the start of the process, which it said is deterring some businesses from applying for the scheme. 'Notwithstanding the Revenue's positive engagement with the scheme, the ability to opt out is a deterrent to some business owners considering the process,' Mr Morrow said, adding that removing some of the administrative burden on businesses would make it a more viable option for under-pressure firms. 'By reducing the burden on businesses and enhancing the flexibility of Scarp, we can support the future viability of more small businesses that may need to restructure in the months ahead,' he said.
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Judge upholds anti-immigration activist Philip Dwyer's conviction over trespassing
Philip Dwyer trespassed at a direct provision centre for International Protection (IP) applicants at Inch in Co Clare where residents were besieged by protesters outside the property, a court has heard. At Ennis Circuit Court on Monday, Judge Francis Comerford upheld the district court conviction imposed on Dwyer, a prominent anti-immigrant activist, for trespassing at Magowna House on May 18th, 2023. Described in court by his counsel Anne Doyle BL as a citizen journalist, Dwyer (56) of Tallaght Cross West, Tallaght, Dublin 24 was appealing the district court trespass conviction imposed in March. Judge Comerford also affirmed the district court fine of €500. Dwyer told the court he was at Magowna House to ask questions as a journalist. READ MORE The judge said Dwyer 'might be entitled to make inquiries and go to someone's door, but he went well beyond it here. I have to doubt about that'. At the time, there were protests at Magowna House, where 29 IP applicants were being accommodated and there were blockades on local roads, which were attracting media attention. Judge Comerford said a group of people came to seek refuge 'and were brought by the State to a relatively isolated, rural location where they were alone and away from a lot of resources and facilities'. 'And in effect, they were besieged in the premises they were brought to. It was made absolutely clear to them that they weren't welcome.' He said there were 30 or 40 people protesting their presence. Judge Comerford said the big difference between Dwyer and the protesters outside was that he came inside the property whereas the others did not. Judge Comerford said he accepted the evidence of the Magowna House manager at the time, Ahlam Salman, who said Dwyer's presence on the property made her feel 'afraid'. Video footage made by Dwyer was played to the court where he can be heard saying that he has arrived at a 'people trafficking centre'. In the footage,Dwyer can be heard saying 'These are all foreign people telling me what I can't do in my own country'. He addressed a Ukrainian man wearing a fluorescent jacket asking 'Do you think Irish people are stupid? Do you think we are all idiots? I wouldn't blame you to be honest with you.' After seeing some men, believed to be IP applicants, staying at the centre, Dwyer asks: 'Why are these people covering their faces . . . This is Ireland. This is my country.' Counsel for the State, Sarah Jane Comerford BL said to Dwyer that his words 'had a menacing undertone'. . In response, Dwyer said: 'I wasn't menacing to anybody.' He said: 'I 100 per cent stand over those comments. We all have to respect one another. I tried to be respectful when I went in there.' He said: 'I was treated very badly. I was treated with hostility … I felt quite intimidated as well. That is part of the job." 'I have thousands of viewers, sometimes hundreds of thousands.' Counsel for Dwyer, Anne Doyle BL, said she was not instructed by her client not to enter any mitigation concerning penalty. She said this was because 'my client stands by his actions',
