Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Modulr FS Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6066744 of 2026-01-09T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Modulr FS Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6066744 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-01-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Modulr FS Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Modulr FS Limited (trading as HyperJar) must pay Miss L an additional £85 in compensation on top of the £15 already paid, for a total of £100. |
Summary
Miss L complained that she was unable to use her HyperJar prepaid card for almost five months due to errors and misunderstandings by the firm. HyperJar failed to notify her of a PIN change and the PIN reset process was not straightforward. Additionally, HyperJar's pop-ups malfunctioned during card renewal. HyperJar initially offered £15 compensation, but the ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered an additional £85 payment (£100 total) because the firm's mistakes caused prolonged card unavailability and negatively affected Miss L's confidence.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that HyperJar's account of whether it had automatic card sending issues was inconsistent - it first told investigators it had such issues, then later denied this. However, the ombudsman determined this inconsistency was immaterial because HyperJar admitted its pop-ups were not working properly during card renewal. Either way, the card renewal process was not as smooth as it should have been, resulting in Miss L being without a card for far longer than necessary. The five-month period without card access had negatively impacted her confidence, warranting compensation beyond the initial £15 offer.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Modulr FS Limited, all decisions | 21 | 29% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 32,767 | 33% |
| Current account, all decisions | 48,245 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website