J.P. Morgan Europe Limited · DRN-6221095

The complaint Mr J complains that J.P. Morgan Europe Limited (Chase) rejected his savings account application due to a fault in their system which has led to an impact on him. What happened Mr J attempted to apply for a Chase savings account in November 2025 using the mobile app. He called Chase for assistance while completing the application and received a rejection message shortly after, which suggested that he may have an issue with his credit file. He queried the reason for rejection and the call handler wasn’t able to tell him or look into the issue. Mr J called back the same day to make Chase aware that he had no issue with his credit score so they must have a system fault. He confirmed that he would open an account elsewhere and email them the evidence so that they could investigate it. Mr J emailed his evidence and complaint to Chase the following day requesting that they reconsider the application and open an account. In early December, Chase responded explaining that they couldn’t confirm the reason for decline, but it could be because he submitted an image of his computer screen showing his ID document rather than an image of the original document. Mr J explained why he did this, but he felt that the app should have rejected the image, instead it led him to believe that the image was fine. He was also unhappy that the rejection implied that it was due to his credit file and requested £250 compensation because he’d spent half a day on the issue. Chase offered £50 compensation as they could have told Mr J about the error he had made sooner, but he didn’t accept this, so he referred the complaint to our service. An Investigator reviewed the complaint and agreed that £50 was reasonable to reflect the impact of not explaining the issue with his ID submission sooner. But they thought that the application process and the reason for declining it was reasonable. Mr J remained unhappy as he thought that Chase’s systems had failed to pick up the issue with his ID submission quickly enough and the compensation didn’t recognise the distress he experienced and time he spent checking that his credit score was correct. The Investigator wasn’t persuaded to change their outcome, so the complaint has been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

I can see that Mr J feels strongly that he’s been treated unfairly by Chase. While I may not comment on everything that’s been raised, I’ve still taken it on board. I’ll be commenting on the points that I think are key to the outcome. It's not our service’s role to tell a business to change its processes. But we must consider whether a business has acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of a complaint, taking into account rules, regulations, industry guidelines and best practice at the time the event took place. The reason for the decline There’s no dispute over the events that took place, Mr J has explained that he chose to submit a photo of his PC screen instead of the original ID document as it was in a different room and Chase have explained that this could have been the reason for the application decline. Chase needs to be careful about the information they share when an application is rejected as it could lead to people learning about their systems and eventually manipulating the application process. So, while Chase should provide a reasonable explanation about the reason for rejection, it’s also reasonable that there’s a level of friction in this process. I can see why only general information was provided in the automatic rejection email with a contact number, so that Chase can provide a tailored response based on the circumstances. The wording of the rejection email isn’t in dispute and Chase have agreed that it may not have fit Mr J’s specific circumstances, but I don’t expect them to include wording which gives the exact reason for the decline. I can’t confirm the exact reason for the rejection, but based on what I’ve seen, I think it’s likely that the photo ID submission would have been a core issue. The support provided Chase has accepted that they should have provided better support at an earlier stage and I agree with this. After receiving the application decline, Mr J was told that even if he did call the number on the message, he wouldn’t be told the reason for the decline. Mr J explained to the advisor that his credit score wouldn’t have been an issue, so Chase should have at least offered to take this away and look into the rejection. Instead, Mr J was given the impression that he wouldn’t gain any further information about what went wrong. Mr J also queried the email address that he should contact about the issue and feels that he was provided with the wrong one. I’ve listened to this call and the advisor provided a different email address to the one Mr J contacted initially. I can see that his complaint was sent to the correct email address later that day. After listening to the calls, I don’t think it would have taken a long time to see that there was a clear issue with the image Mr J had submitted. I don’t think Chase would have been able to review the application and provide an answer on the same day it was declined, but it would have likely been soon after, and before the complaint response was provided in early December. The functionality of the mobile app Mr J thinks he was misled by the app, as it accepted the photo he had submitted. Instead, he thinks the app should have identified that the photo he took was incorrect and prevented him

-- 2 of 3 --

from proceeding with the application. I’ve received screenshots of the screens that Mr J would have gone through while completing the ID process and the request states that ‘we can only accept a photo of your original ID, which means no scans or photocopies’. The example images also suggest that the original document should be used. So, I have to take into account that Mr J was taking a risk that his application may not be successful when he chose not to submit a photo of the original document. It’s not the role of our service to tell a bank to change their systems and processes as that’s the role of the regulator. Mr J expects Chase’s mobile app to be more advanced which comes down to a commercial decision that Chase can make. As such, I’m unable to say that this is something that they should have had in place. Putting things right I have to take into account that Mr J chose to submit a photo of an image rather than the original document and he was made aware that this would carry some risk in his application not being accepted. He’s explained that he’s opened multiple accounts, so I’m sure he’s had some experience with the process. I don’t think the rejection was unreasonable, so Chase aren’t responsible for the worry that Mr J experienced as this was likely because he had provided the incorrect documents. However, Chase should have ultimately been able to give a more detailed reason for the issue with Mr J’s application at an earlier stage and so I agree with him that more support should have been provided. As such, I’m only holding chase liable for the impact of not providing Mr J with more information about the rejection at an earlier stage. After receiving the decline message, Mr J called Chase within two hours to confirm that he’d checked with credit reference agencies and that he’ll be applying for an account elsewhere. This suggests that checking his credit score wouldn’t have been a time-consuming practice and it’s likely that Mr J would have had to do this anyway when disputing the decline. I also don’t think that being unable to open an account with Chase was a concern for him, instead he wanted them to admit that they had made an error. I can see that Chase has explained to Mr J that he can apply for an account again if he wishes to and overall, I think the impact of the incorrect support being provided isn’t substantial and the offer of £50 compensation is reasonable. My final decision My final decision is that J.P. Morgan Europe Limited should pay Mr J £50 in line with their offer, if it hasn’t been paid already. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Chris Lowe Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --