If revolut business accounts have vaults, as with the personal account, they are covered under FSCS with a trustee bank.
The main account balances and currencies will not be covered.
It is the same old story though, people being convinced fairly easily that it’s their bank or a lawyer or whoever else on the line, and they need to action something to keep themselves safe.
I see it day in day out at work, and for all the banks hard work, not everyone is saved in good time.
Do the vaults have full FSCS protection? I believed all of Revolut worked in the way of an EMI, in that if they go bust you get some of the money back less any costs incurred by Revolut paying creditors.
I’ve never bought anything remotely near as expensive as that - would it not take some time for at least fairly minimal documentation to be completed for warranty purposes etc.,
It’s not a world I’m familiar with - I just find it baffling that a £60k + sale/purchase could happen without there being some kind of record - even if only in-store CCTV.
£60k is a lot of money to me/you/us, but for some, that’s like buying a bottle of Coke.
I recently spent a few thousand in a shop, I was in there for 10 minutes and tapped my phone to pay for it. No shop is going to want my driving license to verify a simple purchase and there’s no reason to, the payment system is doing the verification.
Probably not in places like Selfridges and Harrods where the clientele likely wouldn’t want to be burdened with such things, and you probably wouldn’t need to fill anything out of buying perfume or jewellery anyway. Admittedly there should probably have been CCTV of the purchase being made tho.
From what I understood of how it works when I looked this up before when I used ANNA Money, the deposits are totally ringfenced and can’t be used for anything, even if the company goes under. FSCS protection is there because your money is being invested/loaned out by the bank so it’s covered in the eventuality they don’t have your money any more, but with an e-money institution the money would be safe because they’re not allowed to do that.
That webpage is inaccurate and misleading. If you read that you would be on the understanding that in the event of them going under you would get all of your money back which isn’t right.
Using Revolut as an example, and having £1000 in the account (not vault)
Scenario 1:
Company goes under, owes nothing to administrators, you get your money back in full.
Scenario 2:
Company goes under, owes £500 to administrators, you get £500 back.
Yes, that is also likely. I think (I don’t use revolut) that you can choose which bank you use as a vault, if that’s case then it should hopefully be clear whether FSCS protection applies or not
They only have Allica Bank on board as far as I know.
Your £500/500 is very broad, that’s based on 1 person being the customer of revolut.
If they had 100 customers with £1000 each, and the admin costs were £500, you’d pay £5, so it’ll be a percentage split across everyone’s EMI funds equally.
Don’t all banks use the term may? Is there some old school thing such as might or might not which turned into may?
I always assumed it’s more fact than a possibility, and the banks I’ve worked for have always used it in certain things meaning will, not might, receive or have something taken away.
Interesting, that is indeed what I took from it, that the money was safe and ringfenced even in the event of administration. I did wonder how that would work in practice tho as it’d mean it was safer than FSCS which did sound wrong.
Probably worded as such to make people more confident, but the safeguarding page also explains what happens further down that a sum could be taken to cover costs.
