I have had a Revolut pre-paid card, which I’ve used abroad with no problem for many years – until now. I took it on a diving holiday off Tanzania last month, and had a balance of around £500. I used it twice – once to buy something at the airport that cost the equivalent of £10, and again for my entry fee at the marine park for about £110. I was about to pay another bill a few days later when I found I had 93p left in my account. I discovered someone had drained my account to the tune of £379.99. Revolut deemed this as not unusual and has refused to refund me. Please help.
M.B., London
Sally Hamilton replies: Revolut’s pre-paid currency card is popular with globetrotters as it allows them to typically top up with sterling and convert it automatically into scores of currencies at competitive rates. Customers can hold a real card and/or keep a virtual one in their smartphone wallet. One of Revolut’s slogans is ‘travel globally without the worries’. But you rightly felt extremely worried when you found your balance cleared out. You were grateful that at least the loss was limited as in the past you have held higher balances and fortunately you had an alternative means of payment with you.
It emerged that while you were diving among the crocodile fish and dancing shrimps in Tanzania, some 4,700 miles away an unscrupulous scammer was making ten transactions on your card in quick succession at a nail bar in Essex. The scammer drained your account in just five minutes.
Somehow the thief had managed to add your card to their own device and made an initial transaction of £199. They then made a second attempt for the same sum, which was rejected. But the shameless scammer simply had another go, making a series of smaller payments on the card of £19.99, until there were just a few pence left.
When you discovered the funds had gone, you also found the virtual version of your Revolut card had disappeared from your phone.
You told me that you could not understand why your claim for reimbursement was declined and why Revolut could not see these payments were unusual and out of character. I thought its response mystifying, too, as you had taken all the appropriate action by informing Revolut as soon as you spotted the losses. You also attempted to report the scam to the police in Tanzania, though you told me they were apparently at a loss as to why you were even bothering.
When you got home you tried to alert Action Fraud, which collects data on such scams, but the phone just rang without answer. You even wrote a firm email to Revolut co-founder Vlad Yatsenko expressing the unfairness of it all, but heard nothing back.
When I asked Revolut to investigate, it responded quickly. A couple of days later it came back to say it believed you had unwittingly provided a one-time code to someone many months ago, which enabled the crooks to scam you later. You said you do not recall ever giving away such details as you are always scrupulous with your financial affairs. But, whatever happened, it appears the fraudsters had got your card and simply bided their time before draining it. I still believe the rapid series of transactions should have aroused enough suspicion for them to be blocked by Revolut.
However, I am pleased to say Revolut has refunded your losses as a goodwill gesture. A spokesman says: ‘We are very sorry to hear of this case, or any instance where our customers are targeted by ruthless and highly sophisticated criminals. Our understanding is that the customer provided sensitive details to a third party that allowed them to add a virtual card into an Apple Pay wallet and carry out the disputed transactions while she was abroad. Despite this, we recognise the impact that scams like these can have, and have therefore issued her with a goodwill payment of £380.’
Your case is a grim reminder to all readers to stay alert to tricks designed to trap you into handing over personal financial information. We can be particularly vulnerable at this time of year when many of us are carrying out more transactions than usual online. Never hand over any details, one-time passcodes or passwords to anyone who asks for them out of the blue. Always stop and ask yourself whether any such request is linked to a legitimate transaction you are making.
I hid a collection of six gold rings in an old handbag but inadvertently gave the bag, along with some other items, to a local charity shop forgetting they were inside. My efforts to reclaim the rings, which included my mother’s engagement ring and gifts from my husband, came to nothing with the shop so I made a claim on our Hastings Direct household policy. The insurer employed another firm, SBS Home, to value the claim and they offered a £3,742 cash settlement or alternatively to replace some of the rings and pay a cash sum for the rest. For ease and speed, I agreed to the £3,742 in settlement. But Hastings has now told me I am only entitled to £1,500 as the maximum it can pay under my policy. But my understanding is it should be £1,500 per item. Please can you intervene?
C.C., Hertfordshire
Sally replies: Six gold rings… That’s almost a Christmas carol lyric. Unsurprisingly, you weren’t feeling festive when the charity shop couldn’t locate the items you had accidentally donated, one of which was your late-mother’s engagement ring. It is not unusual for these outlets to receive valuable jewellery so it wouldn’t necessarily have been a surprise for the staff to find them stashed in the handbag.
When you enquired, you were told that such items often don’t get displayed in the store but are listed on eBay in a bid to raise more cash for the charity. You didn’t get much joy getting them to locate the pieces, and though you were disappointed felt reassured that you at least had ‘personal possessions’ cover on your home contents policy.
This insurance gives protection for items such as watches, jewellery and mobile phones should they be lost or stolen while the owner is out and about with them. After initially telling you that you would receive £3,742 for your lost rings, Hastings then pointed to its terms and conditions which suggested the maximum it could pay for items out of the home was £1,500 – minus £350 for the excess (the sum that a policyholder agrees to contribute to a claim when taking out a policy).
You were most displeased and sent me the policy wording. I could understand why you would have thought you were entitled to the full sum. It states this optional extra for which you pay an additional premium ‘covers individual items valued under £1,500 that you take away from your home, such as watches or mobile phones’. Hastings said this refers to the full claim value, and not each item. I didn’t think this was made clear enough in the wording and believed you had good reason to complain.
I asked Hastings to look again at your case. I am glad to say that after some consideration it agreed to pay you the original sum discussed with the valuation firm. You were delighted with this result.
A spokesman says: ‘We appreciate this was an upsetting time for our customer and we are sorry for any confusion she may have felt during the claims process. She purchased £1,500 cover away from home as part of her home contents policy – this value is the maximum amount she could claim for. When she registered her claim for £3,742 to cover the value of the lost rings, there was a miscommunication between Hastings Direct and our specialist jewellery supplier regarding the cover purchased, and the claim was accepted in full. Although this was incorrect, we will be settling the full amount for the confusion on this occasion.’
Straight to the point
I regularly fly from Southampton to Dublin. In September I was told my carry-on suitcase was too big and I had to pay £35. I’ve never had an issue before and on the return leg the bag was allowed on with no issues.
A.R., Hampshire
The airline says it is down to the discretion of airport staff and their decision is final.
A few weeks ago I upgraded my BT contract to one with fibre broadband. After chatting with my partner I decided against it and the phone operator said I could cancel it. But on December 2 my internet stopped working. BT told me I must get the fibre as there’s no hope of fixing my line. Please help me get reconnected.
M.H., Hampton
Your services are working as BT connected your broadband and allocated your original phone number to your landline.
I paid £99 to repair my hairdryer but a few days later the company said it couldn’t fix it so would return it. The hairdryer didn’t arrive and the company couldn’t find it. It offered me a refurbished hairdryer for free or a discount on a brand new one. It now says my original hairdryer was recycled – please help.
N.M., via email
Your hairdryer was recycled due to an error and the company has sent you a new hairdryer and four hairclips.
- Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, 9 Derry Street, London, W8 5HY or email [email protected] — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
