TL;DR
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
The Financial Times reported on Oct. 27 that the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority ordered a section 166 review of Revolut’s product approval processes earlier this year. The reported review is examining whether the fast-growing company’s internal systems and controls can manage risks from rapid product launches; the regulator and Revolut declined to comment to PYMNTS.
The Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority has reportedly ordered an independent review of Revolut’s product approval process, examining whether its systems can manage risks as the financial technology company expands. The Financial Times reported Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter, that the regulator issued a section 166 notice earlier this year, around the time Revolut received its full UK banking licence in March. Revolut and the Bank of England declined to comment to PYMNTS.
A section 166 review requires a company to appoint external advisers to examine aspects of its business, according to the report. Such reviews commonly involve accountants and lawyers assessing systems and controls and recommending changes where needed. The Financial Times reported that the inquiry is intended to test the strength of Revolut’s internal arrangements, with particular attention to the pace of its product launches.
The reported scrutiny comes as Revolut broadens its services. On Oct. 26, the day before the report, the company introduced its first credit product since becoming a licensed UK bank: unsecured personal loans of £2,000 to £25,000, repayable over one to five years. The launch highlights the practical stakes of approval controls: lending requires decisions about credit risk, compliance and customer safeguards, though the report did not say the new loans prompted the review.
The Financial Times said Revolut has more than 80 million customers and a valuation of $115 billion. Its offerings span card payments, subscription services and cryptocurrency trading. The report described concerns about the company’s rapid expansion and how its internal oversight keeps pace; it did not publish findings from the current review or establish that the PRA has identified a breach.
Why Product Controls Matter
The review matters because Revolut’s growth and product expansion bring a wider range of activities under one financial brand. For customers, the quality of controls can affect how new products are assessed, how risks are monitored and whether problems are identified before they affect users. A review itself is not proof that customers have suffered harm or that the company has failed to meet regulatory requirements.
For the UK regulator, the issue is whether a bank’s governance and risk systems are suited to the scale and speed of its business. If advisers identify weaknesses, the Financial Times report said they may recommend improvements; the source material also says failures could lead to penalties or enforcement action. No finding, remedy or penalty has been reported in this case, so the immediate significance is regulatory examination rather than a confirmed sanction.
The timing also puts the scrutiny alongside Revolut’s move into UK lending. A banking licence permits the company to operate as a bank, but it does not remove the need for oversight as products and risks change. The review could indicate areas regulators want examined; without published results, it is not possible to say whether Revolut will need to change its launch process or product plans.
Products Worth Considering
FLEXISPOT EN1 Electric Standing Desk, 48 x 24 in, Black
Apple iPad Air (2025) 13‑inch Wi‑Fi 256 GB – Space Gray (M3 chip)
HP Sprocket Photo Booth Machine Instant Color Photo Printer with 10.1 Touchscreen, LED Ring Light, 250+ Frames, 3×4 ZINK Paper, QR Code Shar
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Earlier Warnings and Licensing
The current report follows earlier regulatory attention to Revolut’s product governance. The source material says the European Central Bank imposed growth restrictions on the company last year after identifying what it called “deficiencies” in its product approval process. It also ordered a third-party review of the risk, compliance and legal functions overseeing product launches in Europe. Those actions concerned the European business; they do not, by themselves, establish the outcome of the UK review.
The Financial Times also reported last year that the Bank of England had delayed granting Revolut a UK banking licence amid concerns about whether its risk controls could keep pace with expansion into new markets. Revolut received its full licence in March 2026, according to the report. The alleged section 166 notice was issued around that time, but the available reporting does not specify its exact date or explain how the licence decision and review were linked.
Revolut’s co-founder and CEO Nik Storonsky has reportedly urged teams to operate like “self-guided missiles” when launching products, according to the Financial Times. That description is attributed to the report and is not a regulatory finding. It helps explain why the company’s launch model has drawn attention, but the key question remains whether its formal approval and control systems are effective.
““U.K. consumers can face unnecessary friction and complex fee structures when borrowing.””
— Francesca Carlesi, Revolut UK CEO, in the company’s loan announcement
Review Findings Not Yet Public
The available reporting does not identify the advisers conducting the section 166 review, set out its scope in detail or give a timetable for its completion. It is also not clear whether the review has produced interim findings, whether Revolut has already made changes, or whether the PRA has asked for specific remedial steps.
Neither Revolut nor the Bank of England commented when approached by PYMNTS. The review’s reported existence and purpose are based on the Financial Times’ sources, rather than a public statement from the regulator. No public evidence in the source material confirms a breach, customer losses or enforcement action arising from this process.
Waiting for Regulatory Findings
The next clear milestone would be publication or confirmation of the review’s findings, or a statement from Revolut or the PRA clarifying its scope and any required changes. The source material does not provide a completion date, and neither party had commented to PYMNTS at the time of its report.
Until further details emerge, Revolut’s new UK personal loans are the latest example of its product expansion, but the reporting does not say the review has halted or altered that launch. Any future regulatory action, revisions to approval procedures or effects on customers remain unconfirmed.
Key Questions
What is the reported UK review of Revolut?
The Financial Times reported that the Prudential Regulation Authority issued Revolut a section 166 notice earlier in 2026 to examine its product approval processes and related controls. Revolut and the Bank of England declined to comment to PYMNTS.
Does the review mean Revolut has broken regulations?
No breach has been confirmed in the reported material. A review examines systems and may lead to recommendations; the report did not announce findings, a penalty or enforcement action against Revolut.
What is a section 166 review?
As described in the report, it requires a company to appoint external advisers to examine specified parts of its business. Advisers commonly assess systems and controls and can recommend improvements where necessary.
What new product did Revolut launch in the UK?
On Oct. 26, Revolut announced unsecured personal loans for UK customers, ranging from £2,000 to £25,000 with repayment terms of one to five years. The report did not establish that the loans triggered the regulatory review.
When will the review’s outcome be known?
No completion date or publication schedule was given in the source material. The review’s scope, findings and any actions requested by the PRA remain unclear.
Source: pymnts.com
