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
an hour 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',
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Teenager jailed for role in Tristan Sherry death further sentenced over sawn-off shotgun
A teenager jailed for violent disorder during the melee in which Tristan Sherry was beaten to death has been sentenced to a further three years and eight months in prison after he was caught 'red-handed' burying a sawn-off shotgun, ammunition and more than €55,000 worth of drugs for the Hennessy crime gang. The Dubliner (18), who cannot be named because he was a minor when he came before the courts, previously pleaded guilty to a number of offences at Tolka Valley Park, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, on May 7th and 8th, 2024. Among the charges were possession of a side-by-side shotgun, possession of cannabis and diamorphine for the purpose of sale or supply to another and possession of a drug named phenacetin, in circumstances giving rise to the inference that it was connected to a drug-trafficking offence. He was also charged with the possession of ammunition. READ MORE Sentencing the youth to five years in prison with the final one year and four months suspended at the Special Criminal Court on Monday , Ms Justice Karen O'Connor said the defendantwas 'essentially caught red-handed'. However, she said the court had to be conscious of the evidence that he was 'acting under the influence' of others at the time who were 'no doubt older than him'. She also noted his pleas of guilty were mitigating factors in the case. The judge noted evidence at a previous sentencing hearing that the defendant had been acting 'at the behest of the Hennessy organised crime group'. She said the fact he was only 17 at the time was a 'significant factor' which the court had to consider. The judge noted the defendant had a 'challenging upbringing' and has been described as a 'vulnerable young man'. She said the sentence imposed on Monday would run consecutive to the jail term he is currently serving, meaning he will serve a total sentence of five years. The Special Criminal Court previously heard that on May 7th, 2024, an undercover drug unit in Blanchardstown observed the teenager digging in the ground. When the gardaí approached, they saw the butt of a shotgun sticking out of the earth. Eight drug packages wrapped in black clingfilm were beside the hole. The scene was preserved, and the following morning gardaí discovered further drug and ammunition packages. In a separate matter, the Special Criminal Court previously found the teenager guilty of violent disorder at Browne's Steakhouse in Blanchardstown on Christmas Eve, 2023. During a trial last year, the court heard that gangland figure Jason Hennessy snr was celebrating with about 30 people, including the defendant. Tristan Sherry and a second gunman entered the restaurant with their faces covered and hoods up. Hennessy snr suffered a fatal gunshot wound as he grappled with Sherry, but he managed to drag the gunman to the ground. Others in the party piled in on Sherry, stamping on his torso and head, stabbing him repeatedly and using various objects to beat him to death. Three people were convicted of murder arising out of the assault on Sherry. The defendant in this case initially hid under a table, but when he emerged he engaged in violence against Sherry for about five seconds.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Garda whistleblower claims financial penalisation after voicing concerns about equipment
A senior Garda officer claims he has been financially penalised, with his pay cut by half while he has been on sick leave, because he made protected disclosures outlining concerns about Garda practices and equipment. Detective superintendent Brian O'Reilly has taken his case against An Garda Síochána (AGS) to Dublin Circuit Civil Court in a bid to have his full remuneration reinstated. He claims Garda Commissioner Drew Harris has breached protections for whistleblowers enshrined in legislation by penalising him after he had made protected disclosures. Det Supt O'Reilly claimed in his protected disclosure that leather holsters issued to gardaí for their firearms, made and supplied by an equine saddlery in Kildare, may have been responsible for the serious accidental self-wounding of a garda on protection duty. The injured garda was on duty at the residence of the Israeli ambassador in Dublin on June 11th, 2020. That incident was followed six days later by the murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan, who was shot and killed by an individual who disarmed him by taking his gun from his holster. That person was later convicted of Det Garda Horkan's capital murder. READ MORE Rosario Boyle SC, appearing with Conor Duff BL, for Det Supt O'Reilly, on Monday told the court her client had suffered 'dire' consequences at such a large reduction in remuneration. This had resulted in difficulties paying his mortgage, it was claimed. His pay has been reduced to 50 per cent of what it ordinarily would be, as the illness that has forced him out of work is classified by AGS as an 'ordinary' sickness rather than 'injury from duty'. Ms Boyle said that in January, the gardaí's executive director, people and development, Yvonne Cooke, rejected Det Supt O'Reilly's application for his absence to be classified as 'injury from duty'. She did so on the basis of a report by a detective chief superintendent asked to investigate the cause of the illness-injury. She also considered the views of An Garda Síochána's chief medical officer. Conor Power SC, for the Garda Commissioner, told Judge John O'Connor there was no proof to suggest Det Supt O'Reilly's absence from work had been categorised in such a way because he made a protected disclosure. He said Det Supt O'Reilly's stance was 'this has been refused to me, therefore it's penalisation because I made a protected disclosure'. Judge O'Connor has said he will endeavour to deliver a judgment by the end of the month, with the case listed for mention on July 25th. Det Supt O'Reilly made his protected disclosure about the holsters in June 2021, saying he had 'ongoing significant concerns'. In the second half of 2022, he raised further concerns internally about plans for a 'defective' leather pistol holster to be tested by Garda armourers at the request of Garda Commissioner Drew Harris. Det Supt O'Reilly said he raised these concerns as he believed they were not qualified. He believed efforts were made to undermine him, including excluding him from decision-making, and to force him out of his position as acting head of the Garda National Technical Bureau. In late 2022, having placed a circular about 'defective' holsters on the Garda portal, he declined a request from management to withdraw it, he claims. In April 2023, Det Supt O'Reilly began a period of sick leave which, he says, was brought about because of his work. In July of that year, he was informed he was being placed under investigation for breach of discipline. This related to his claimed actions around the commission of a second report by Garda management on the leather pistol holster.
