Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Tom Price   Thank you for your note, which is very helpful.   Did VCS cite the following cases?   1. VCS v Ward 2. Semark Jullien   VCS threw the two cases to me in the last minute at my previous hearing. The judge accepted the extra WS and adjourned my case for me to read/defend it. My case is going to be held on 30th March.   Thanks!      
    • Hi,   So, I received a letter today from a debt collection law firm threatening CCJ action on behalf of Volvo/Santander for a voluntary termination of a vehicle. (I did request Volvo/Santander that a complaints procedure be started as I think the terms of the contract were miss sold but alas, they ignored me and went straight to CCJ action via a debt collection law firm!).   I digress, anyway, so the letter was addressed to me, it included my original signed contract, but, there was another document inside. This document was another hire contract with some other person details on it!   It includes:   Their full name Their address and postcode Their handwritten signature Their email address Their mobile telephone number Their debt amount Their vehicle registration    Is this a breach of the data protection act? On the flip side, my details could be in the hands of someone else, who knows?    What should I do now, is this a trump card that I could use if this matter does actually go to court? I did intend to argue against this debt in the first place.   Any advice on this would be most grateful!   TIA         
    • Hi guys   I received a county court claim form on Thursday dated 18/02/2021 saying that the claimant (CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) is claiming for the sum of £2140.14 on behalf of  NEW DAY LTD RE MARBLES. but it requests all documents to be sent to MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS.   Now i think i did have a marbles card a while ago although my partner says that that was a capital one card.   But either way i don't like the idea of these parasites chasing me for money for a debt they probably bought for £10.    From looking around here it seems that i should be sending them a CCA request and a CPR 31.14.   I've bought a £1 postal order.   Is there anything else i need to do?   Thanks for any help given
    • Yes that is an absolute must. Generally the Council has no wish to see people committed to prison for Council Tax debt. They want to see the debt recovered where it is properly due and the debtor has the ability to pay. If he hasn't that ability they will take into account the debtor's financial situation and make any arrangements they can. But only a court can remit some or all of the debt. The more you engage with the Council the easier this will be.
    • I think you'd need to have formally noted you were working under protest at the time. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Revolut Account Suspension

Recommended Posts

Hi there, 


I have seen a similar case posted here before so want to try my luck - anyone have a  view on how to deal with such "bank bully?"


1. my problem is with Revolut having an overly sensitive AML (possibly algorithm) resulting in thousands of accounts suspensions, following which they typically have a poor customer service and invasive unlocking policies on resolve the issue. Revolut has no customer hotlines to call, and access to funds, sometimes large sum, can be locked behind slow chat room agents for ages.


2. in my case, i was attracted by Revolut's paid service of unlimited FX transactions (at fairly good rates, and instant access, 8GBP per month?), and decided to transfer large sums of  EUR (three clips of 50k EUR each) from my own account to revolut, take advantage of the cheap FX exchange (which i have paid for) and transfer out. Both the transfer-in and transfer-outs are from accounts in the UK, under my own name. 


3. Revolut flagged a request for verifying source of funding on 10th Dec 2020 after my second transfer, for which i immediately provided my Barclays bank account EU bank account statement. they did not respond at all for near 30 days while the account remained operational despite the review.


4. On 4th Jan 2021, i transferred in my third clip of 50k EUR, the transfer in and conversion to GBP encountered no issue, but the transfer out (to my own account elsewhere) was blocked


5. contacting revolut has been very frustrating - there is nowhere to call, and the chat room is the only way to contact any one. The agents take forever to reply, and it took me 4 hours to get to speak to someone who basically said - it is unusual to take this long. But we need your pay slips and tax return records.


i work in institutional financial sector, know a bit about the concept of AML. I wonder if Revolut had grounds to conduct invasive reviews like this? note these are funds from my own-named accounts... While banks can hide behind their T&C and simply say it is their policy, surely as a regulated financial services provider there have to be rules governing such reviews and restricted access to client money? there are now thousands cases of complaints like this. 


in my view, if revolut want to be invasive on DD on picking their client, they have the right to be  - but at the account opening stage. if they accept the account opening applications, and enable the service, they cannot then make the service overly sensitive to large sums? Especially if the services i paid for are advertised as "unlimited FX conversion". 


My guess is that Revolut was done for compliance reaches, and had instead gone overboard with AML detection without adequate unlocking policies. all they have are a stretched ream of agents with a poorly written unlocking procedure. if customers have any issues with this process (i suppose most do?), they simply just not respond... 







Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put - Yes they do because £50k a pop raises ALOT of eyebrows. 

But unfortunately some financial institutions do get it wrong. This would likely be an automated process that has done this and then flagged for review. 

Wonder if they contacted the NCA due to the amounts hence for the slow response.


Where are you at currently? Have you had your money returned back to you ?


We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group



Receptaculum Ignis


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was locked out until i discovered that the debit card was still functional (but not for bank transfers). So i have essentially used up my balance by topping up some other services. 


50k clips are large sums for sure, and large sums have been a point many raised as a justification for Revolut. But note they advertise as a cheap FX conversion provider, so it is not unreasonable for those with larger FX exchange needs to utilise this and be subsequently locked up in this. You won't bother for changing 2000 GBP to EUR just to save 10 pounds.. from a customer protection point of view, my questions are:


1) Why is Revolut's AML a lot more different from banks in the UK? They project an image of being a smart current account. If you transfer large sums between high street bank accounts, most banks dont have AML policies this sensitive. You don't hear a high street bank receiving 3000 resolver complaints in 2019 just in the UK, mostly about blocked accounts but also on poor customer services? and most of these banks have a musher bigger customer base. Why the sensitivity? look at other similar FX providers, say Transferwise, they dont have a similar level of problem at all (have done similar amounts with them in one clip to be honest).


2) if Revolut does a lower level AML at account opening (for the ease of scaling), and subsequently use a transaction-size based trigger for a more invasive DD, they need to be transparent about it. I have seen such DD done at PayPal, but even so, such DDs are usually ID based rather than transaction or source of funds specific. If  the initial DD was not suitable for larger sum, why advertising unlimited FX? 


3) they are not a deposit taking institution but more a payment service provider, so effectively holding client money under the CASS regulation 7 of the FCA rule book, which is heavily restricted. There are strict rules on paying your customers promptly. Restricting client access to client money can be done on compliance grounds (most financial service providers have this in their T&C), but if long delays are also due to poor procedure and lack of customer service, are they justifiable? 


I was more hoping to raise the point to see if anyone's come across the regulatory framework on such matter. maybe it is just me but for Revolut to hide behind "AML policy" and restrict access to funds, is no different to Waitrose stopping you at their door demanding a bag search and proof of ownership for every item in your bag...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except Waitrose don’t get prosecuted for failing to stop you and check your bag, which might happen to the AML staff at Revolut if they aren’t reporting suspicious transactions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BazzaS said:

Except Waitrose don’t get prosecuted for failing to stop you and check your bag, which might happen to the AML staff at Revolut if they aren’t reporting suspicious transactions.

absolutely valid argument. I am not saying Revolut has no right to discharge its AML responsibility, more that what protections customers have if Revolut fails on unlocking AML-related account locks adequately? (given the history of its AML breach, i can understand they want to be cautious on AML).


They have been brought to court on such issue and lost, though they basically claimed admin errors on the delay. I can say  my ( and my partner's) experience on poor de-risking procedure was just like what the guy had described in the below story.





Link to post
Share on other sites

While not particularly relevant to your thread I can confirm Revolut customer service is in no way fit for purpose. They are clearly based in a low skill, low wage jurisdiction which results in absolutely no assistance except scripted answers. The chat messages might even be generated by bots, there is no discernible difference that I can tell. So while I don't have experience with your specific issue I can say with complete confidence you will have to take this to a third party to receive any recourse as in my experience they will do absolutely nothing to assist you.


They will repeatedly attempt to close any chat dialogue you have open if you dare to not respond within whatever time frame suits their customer service targets and will be forced to begin the process again. The fastest way to engage with a human being is immediately request to make a written complaint, you can also try this e-mail address, [email protected]


1) The conclusion, regrettably appears to be that you get what you pay for and Revolut are simply best avoided wherever possible, it is certainly not an insitution I would trust significant funds with.


2) With regards to advertising unlimited FX conversion I doubt Revolut is required to disclose any such payment limit for additional checks and more likely are legally obliged to keep anti money laundering  (AML) practices undisclosed to the public. They do not and cannot advertise "unlimited FX conversion free from anti money laundering checks and any delays that occur as a result". Any AML checks performed at account opening are highly unlikely to remove the requirement for similar checks to be completed in the future if required.


Unfortunately it sounds like you have to join the mountain of other complaints with regards to unreasonable amount of time it took to regain access to your funds.


Still, you're not the only customer who has fallen victim to their pretence that they are a bank when as you indicated they are unable to perform to anything like the standards of a so called traditional bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...