OUR SWIFT payments


#6

It wasn’t like that some months ago, but it’s really great if they are doing “OUR” now. @rafael_revolut/@AndreasK can you confirm?


#7

But this post tells something different and is only 3 days old


#8

The support conversation was on Nov. 8
image

I tested 2 transfers yesterday:

  • PLN to a Polish bank --> sent as a local transfer from The Currency Cloud
  • CHF to a Swiss bank --> sent as SWIFT “OUR” from The Currency Cloud

#9

@AndreasK/@rafael_revolut can you confirm Revolut is sending all SWIFT transfers as OUR, as customer support told @Karol?

I need to make some USD payments to China, and I would love to trust :r: will deliver the exact amount my suppliers expect


#10

The law is very clear on this. Article 81 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market (PSD2) states:

  1. Member States shall require the payment service provider(s) of the payer, the payment service provider(s) of the payee and any intermediaries of the payment service providers to transfer the full amount of the payment transaction and refrain from deducting charges from the amount transferred.

  2. However, the payee and the payment service provider may agree that the relevant payment service provider deduct its charges from the amount transferred before crediting it to the payee. In such a case, the full amount of the payment transaction and charges shall be separated in the information given to the payee.

  3. If any charges other than those referred to in paragraph 2 are deducted from the amount transferred, the payment service provider of the payer shall ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction initiated by the payer. Where the payment transaction is initiated by or through the payee, the payment service provider of the payee shall ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is received by the payee.

EU directives are not law; they need to be enacted into national law in each EEA member state. Revolut is based in the United Kingdom. The above Article 81 is enacted into UK law under Regulation 84 of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which states:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the payment service providers of the payer and payee must ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is transferred and that no charges are deducted from the amount transferred.

(2) The payee and its payment service provider may agree for the relevant payment service provider to deduct its charges from the amount transferred before crediting it to the payee provided that the full amount of the payment transaction and the amount of the charges are clearly stated in the information provided to the payee.

(3) If charges other than those provided for by paragraph (2) are deducted from the amount transferred—

(a) in the case of a payment transaction initiated by the payer, the payer’s payment service provider must ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction;

(b) in the case of a payment transaction initiated by the payee, the payee’s payment service provider must ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction.

It is clear that Revolut, as the payment service provider of the payer, “must ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is transferred and that no charges are deducted from the amount transferred”. It is Revolut’s responsibility to ensure that its intermediary banks (including its chosen bank Lloyds) do not deduct fees, in order to ensure Revolut’s compliance with the legislation. If fees are deducted, then there is a remedy under Regulation 84(3)(a) of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, requiring Revolut to “ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction”. If an intermediary bank has deducted charges, then you should insist to Revolut that it complies with Regulation 84(3)(a) and resends any shortfall amount. If Revolut’s support people refuse to comply, then you should complain via Revolut’s formal complaint process, quoting the above legislation.


#11

We use SHA as per PSD2, however, in the future we will provide the option to choose between SHA, OUR & BEN!


SWITZERLAND - Top-up --> working method = TW, and direct to shared Rev account
#12

thanks for confirming it.

any time frame?

may you explain why complaince with regulation 84(3)(a) mentioned by @NFH doesn’t cover us?


#13

@AndreasK - PSD2 doesn’t explicitly refer to SHA etc. Article 81(1) of PSD2 requires “any intermediaries of the payment service providers to transfer the full amount of the payment transaction and refrain from deducting charges from the amount transferred”. The problem is that Revolut is allowing its chosen intermediaries to deduct charges from the amount transferred.


#14

I find it quite entertaining how @NFH quotes the law so often but is then rebuffed by Revolut - I have mentioned a few times already that Revolut’s legal compliance team as well as Apple’s are likely to know their business and what laws are applicable more. I would just like to say this again.


#15

@Recchan - if you believe this, then you’re an idiot. How many times have you taken a business, particularly a large one like Apple, to court? I’m an experienced and successful litigant-in-person, who often takes businesses (including one that you cite) and even government agencies to court. It is very common that they do not fully understand the law that governs them and they can submit no valid defence. Please make an effort to understand the law before directing unreasoned and unmerited criticism against those who understand the law better than you do. Your post comes across as a personal attack rather than discussing the subject matter that I write about, evidenced by your specific mention of Apple, which I had not previously mentioned in this thread.


#16

If you are so sure I would ask you to put your money where your mouth is and hit Revolut with a suit.


#17

There’s no need for a court suit.

If anyone’s been adversely affected by charges and they think that this goes against the directive and the UK regulations then they can put in a complaint to the Financial ombudsman. After going through Revolut’s complaint process and exhausting the in house process.


#18

@Recchan - On what basis are you suggesting that I issue a County Court claim? As I have not encountered such deductions by intermediaries, what financial loss would I be claiming? Why would one not first complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service? In any case, anyone suffering such a loss would be expected to exhaust Revolut’s complaints procedure before following either course of action. Again, this was another silly comment that only serves to show your ignorance.


#19

Class Action for those that have encountered losses :wink:

Do this then? Make some petty transfer and then get a letter of deadlock from Revolut, it should be pretty quick.

Sure it is :+1:


#20

So you’re suggesting that I should make a transaction via Revolut for the sole purpose of creating a dispute with Revolut so that I can escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service and/or to the Small Claims track of the County Court? You’re deluded; both the FOS and the courts would see this course of action as vexatious.

In any case, Revolut would not let it get to a final response and a consequent complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, not least as it would cost them £550, irrespective of the outcome. As I explained above, anyone suffering deductions by intermediaries should complain via Revolut’s formal complaint process, quoting the relevant legislation. This worked for me when I suffered another breach of legislation by Revolut. I would not recommend pursuing your unreasonably vexatious and immature approach.


#21

How about we just ask @AndreasK since I imagine we’ll get nowhere from this discussion.

I doubt they’d be willing to absorb the cost of every SWIFT transfer they make. They’d go bankrupt unless they stopped them entirely, so let’s see what good old Revolut legal team thinks.

Edit: I’ve given them a bell on Twitter and I do see what you’re trying to say, as opposed to being abrasive like I have done, do you think it’s perhaps because Revolut initiate the transfer under their own accounts, meaning that you don’t make the transfer and they tell the bank to take the amount from the total sent? Surely if they say the cost is included then they’re paying for the swift transfer fee as far as regulation is concerned - since you’re technically using a pooled account.


#22

Actually @Recchan here is right. Same people that always bring up “law” and “compliance” but without any legal background. I strongly believe that these people they only want to misdirect others.


#23

Indeed, but I’m not suggesting that Revolut should absorb the charges levied by their chosen intermediaries. If Revolut cannot prevent fees from being charged by its intermediary banks, then Revolut would need to advertise a charge for bank transfers in order to cover these costs. What Revolut can’t do is advertise that it doesn’t charge for bank transfers and then allow fees to be unlawfully deducted by intermediary banks from the amount transferred. Schedule 1 Paragraph 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 states that the following is an unfair commercial practice:

Describing a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.

Furthermore Regulation 5(4)(g) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibits a misleading indication of price.

You make a plausible suggestion, because that was previously the case two years ago. But Revolut have since changed their terms and conditions to state in paragraph 2.1 that “Revolut is the issuer of Electronic Money in your Revolut Electronic Money Account and performs the payment services related to your Revolut Electronic Money Account”. Therefore Revolut is the payment service provider referred to in the legislation.


#24

@pepe, your unreasoned comment lacks credibility. I have quoted the precise sections of the legislation and linked to it, evidencing my assertions. Feel free to challenge the content of what I quote, but don’t attack me personally, particularly in such an unreasoned and non-evidenced manner.


#25

This is only your assumption based on your own interpretation! Which literally means nothing and can only mislead others. Using a part of the law does not give you any credibility, simply because the law is so broad that one part of the law can “undo” another part of the same law.

Also, it’s funny to think that a fast growing company with all eyes on it, it does not comply with laws. Especially after getting their banking license.

p.s. Don’t take this as a personal attack.