3 ms·

> Revolut is a pre-paid card. You can't expect expect the same level of protection The hell I can't. If they can't make their service secure and stand behind i

> Revolut is a pre-paid card. You can't expect expect the same level of protection The hell I can't. If they can't make their service secure and stand behind it when they fail, they have no business providing the service at all. What Revolut's legal status and responsibilities are, I don't know. (Although the update says that they did eventually refund him, so clearly someone was aware they fucked up.) But implying that it's the user's fault for not anticipating Revolut's insecurity is absurd. He did make a mistake, but so did Revolut, and they should have (and, eventually, did) make it right.

johnnycab 7y ago
>What Revolut's legal status and responsibilities are, I don't know.(Although the update says that they did eventually refund him, so clearly someone was aware they fucked up.) I also use them as my main debit card, because I (mistakenly) thought that the immediate notifications and safety limits would keep me safer in case of fraudulent transactions. My comment was referencing the above statement from the blog post, which highlights the fact that using this card as a debit card is not a prudent decision. There was absolutely no implication that Revolut was blameless, in any way whatsoever! I am glad that the matter has now been resolved. For your reference, this card is not protected under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme, neither does it provide protection under Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, it is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA) under Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and Section 12 describes the complaint handling procedure, which requires the consumer to follow the dispute resolution process by contacting the business first, before escalating it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. In most cases, there is a resolution before it reaches FOS. https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/emoney-approach.pdf https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/emoney-approach.p... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263121

johnnycab 7y ago

>What Revolut's legal status and responsibilities are, I don't know.(Although the update says that they did eventually refund him, so clearly someone was aware they fucked up.) I also use them as my main debit card, because I (mistakenly) thought that the immediate notifications and safety limits would keep me safer in case of fraudulent transactions. My comment was referencing the above statement from the blog post, which highlights the fact that using this card as a debit card is not a prudent decision. There was absolutely no implication that Revolut was blameless, in any way whatsoever! I am glad that the matter has now been resolved. For your reference, this card is not protected under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme, neither does it provide protection under Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, it is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA) under Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and Section 12 describes the complaint handling procedure, which requires the consumer to follow the dispute resolution process by contacting the business first, before escalating it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. In most cases, there is a resolution before it reaches FOS. https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/emoney-approach.pdf https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/emoney-approach.p... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263121