Communications Ombudsman Avaliações 

The investigation failed to properly analyse the central issue of my complaint and instead accepted EE’s explanation without adequately addressing the evidence I provided. Most concerning, EE themselves ultimately removed the adverse credit marker and corrected all three credit reference agencies, yet the Ombudsman concluded there had been no failure warranting criticism. I expected a more thorough and independent investigation, particularly where a consumer’s credit record was at stake.

Don’t bother! They will side with the conglomerates! They hate small businesses and blatantly take bribes from the big companies! Shocking service!

I raised a case with the communications ombudsman regarding my mobile provider. The first case worker who looked at my case explained the process clearly and was helpful. Based on his written analysis, I felt he understood the case fully. My complaint was upheld and I accepted the proposed remedy.

The company then appealed this decision, so the case was reviewed by a more senior colleague. Again my complaint was upheld, but the remedy was amended. The wording of the analysis and remedy decision repeatedly made reference to the warranty, which is irrelevant to my complaint. This was either through the case worker not understanding the case at all, sloppy wording or it was deliberate to allow the company to get away with not providing a satisfactory remedy. I asked for clarification on this point and received written confirmation that there shouldn't have been any reference to the warranty.

Of course, the company has now responded by sending me through the warranty process. A process which I have already been through once before (and the ombudsman agreed did not lead to a satisfactory outcome). I have gone back to the ombudsman to report this but they are not being helpful at all. They have basically said -well they might do the right thing this time!

I feel really let down in a situation that has already been frustrating. Now I am having to take this to small claims court.

For what is meant to be an independent complaint review process, the Ombudsman have been far from this. They contacted the company - Three - once for their position with regards to my complaint, the company gave incorrect information to the Ombudsman and I provided evidence to support this. I was shocked that my evidence was ignored/dismissed by the Ombudsman without any fact finding process. In the Ombudsman refusing to consider or investigate my evidence, this showed total bias towards the company. In their responses to me challenging this, the Ombudsman made me out to be a liar, even though the evidence contradicted this, and without going into a lengthy account with regards to my complaint against Three, in their recorded response the Ombudsman stated that Three did not have to stick to their terms and conditions which baffles me. My complaint with regards to how my case was handled apparently went though an independent review process, although from updates I think the case handler was being tutored and this was done by the case assessors “coach”, and as such they were reviewing their own decision making. On being challenged over this and wanting to escalate the complaint, I was told there is no process for this. It seems ridiculous that the Ombudsman are not held accountable for their actions, there is no formal complaint process other than my dissatisfaction noted on my case, and I wasted 3 months on a pointless complaint escalation process, involving the Ombudsman when there was no impartiality from them. I would not waste your time taking a complaint to the Ombudsman, and would suggest seeking an alternative resolution pathway.

This industry is broken and the weakness of the regulator and ombudsman are possibly the biggest reason. The fact that I've had to use this service 3 times now tells its own story. Once they got it right. Twice they've now got it badly wrong. Any gap to decline a case will be hunted out. The first error was ... we're not technical and can't make a ruling on Virgin Media... well you have to be technical? This is providing oversight of tech provisions? The second wrong, (this one), they incorrectly ruled that a Openreach / BT Permission To Work order that could not be seen by me ... wasn't fact? It was a choice that I couldn't see it apparently? They failed to even analyse the permission to work details (that I have never seen) to see if they were reasonable? It absolutely beggars belief.

They fail to also show any control over Openreach and rule that BT has no control over them? That doesn't stand up in a court of law? If you enter into a contract to provide a service you have to be in control of your suppliers. Water companies are getting multiple million pound fines for not performing. This service dishes out £25-£100 here and there? The industry is laughing at the situation. It's outrageous and not what you'd expect of a civilised country. These providers are absolutely laughing at the soft soft approach and laugh even more when 100% valid cases are declined as it didn't meet the checklist. These broadband providers would score zero against most of the 6 TCF principles the FCA has introduced to manage our finance world.

If I apply the six outcomes of TCF to this complaint this is the outcome
1. Culture and governance. Clients are confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the firm culture - failed. Virgin Media didn't even bother to respond to my executive complaint? BT allocated someone who had no interest in it. Not at all the kind of organisations we can trust.
2. Product design - failed. BT & Virgin Media have both sold me a product they were unable to deliver.
3. Clear communication - failed. I have never seen the Permission to Work order and, from snippets said, believe it to be 100% incorrect. It fails to recognise that the drive they wanted to dig up is shared by 3 houses, and fails to provide most of the things it should do. Unfair timescales were given before the order was closed down.
4. Suitable advice. Failed - Virgin Media don't respond. BT do allow you to escalate but they then ignore you. I had a lengthy conversation with a BT call handler and in the end insisted I wanted this to be logged as a complaint and escalated. He did that and then immediately closed it, no escalation. Both organisations are poisonous and ungoverned. Openreach has powers that are ridiculous. Not customer facing and performs dreadfully?
5. Performance and standards. Failing badly - poisonous dreadfully managed companies who have no reasonable guard rails in which to operate. OFCOM & Comms Ombudsman together in harmony achieving nothing.
6. Claims, complaints and changes - dreadful. The BT handlers were laughing at me and replying with rubbish to close this down. Virgin Media were even worse and never even bothered replying. They can take money from my account every month but don't have to provide a service?

My summary is that the service the Comms Ombudsman performs is badly broken. If it was closed down it would make no difference. A complete waste of my time and yours. The rules the handlers work with are ridiculous.

There's a guy dealing with executive complaints at BT called Buddy, (there may be several called that). If his complaints handling was audited by a person who works in the financial services industry operating within TCF under the ask of the FCA, it's likely, based on this experience, that the majority of cases he handles would fail. He sees his job as closing complaints down not handling them. He'd probably be performance managed and given a warning or dismissed... it's that bad.

As a result of the ruling on these 2 cases, (I was trying to move to BT as my Virgin Media service is poor), I'm trapped to one provider. I effectively have no meaningful broadband competition available because Openreach cancellation mechanics and Permission To Work failure have locked the property into a single provider.

Whilst I know there is NOT generally a legal right to multiple providers, I also know that there is:

- a regulatory expectation around competition,
- infrastructure access,
- and reasonable broadband availability.

The Ofcom Broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) does not guarantee:

Fibre 900,
or provider choice,

BUT it does recognise that consumers should not be left without decent connectivity. Which is where I am now?

Waste of time. Beverly never responded to our messages. After waiting weeks the outcome was in favour of the large corporation and we got nothing.

(The original claim was about EE. We called and spent over an hour talking to their cheap hired foreign call centre staff to cancel a phone, was told it was cancelled, eventually, and then they kept charging us for it for 7 years in the background (~£5000).

This Ombudsman did not read my complaint properly, used the WRONG companies terms and conditions, ignored nearly 2 MONTHS of service failures, appalling customer service and dismissed clear evidence!!! I was met with a cold, dismissive attitude and no warning that declining the decision would be treated as final. The whole process felt one-sided, unprofessional, and focused on protecting the business, not the consumer. I was left feeling irrelevant and abandoned. A total waste of time. If you're expecting ‘justice’ and to be heard I would suggest you look ELSEWHERE. They are NOT impartial at all. They don't look at evidence properly.!! They don't even understand the law which I can prove - the 14 day cooling off period does NOT relate when you're already into a contract months later, they basically copied and pasted the providers comments more or less and then to add to the insult use the WRONG companies terms and conditions!! How is that ‘fair’? How is that ‘impartial’ when you can’t even get the RIGHT company in the complaint? Talk about no attention to detail whatsoever…totally unacceptable, they should be shut down - a disgrace. And the adjudicator’s phone manner was appalling if I knew I was going to be talked down to and patronised I would’ve never rang them back… oh and forget about making a complaint. They’re not interested and just twist it on you so no actual protection or fairness for the consumer at all…totally shocked and blindsided by this treatment I certainly did not expect this….

Laura advised me and was supportive in getting justice from EE. They left a vunerable elderly person without any phone for 6 weeks and overcharged him for almost 2 years. I was so relieved to have the help from the Ombudsman. It is now resolved, pending the refund.
I would recommend anyone to contact the Ombudsman.

I used the Communications Ombudsman following a dispute with a telecommunications provider regarding the application of a referral promotion.

The staff were generally polite and responsive, and my case was accepted for investigation. I submitted extensive evidence, responded to the provider's submissions, and fully engaged with the process over a number of weeks.

My dissatisfaction is not primarily with the outcome itself, but with the way the process ultimately concluded. After the investigation had been completed, I was informed that the central issue in dispute fell outside the Ombudsman's remit because it related to a promotional offer and was considered a commercial decision of the provider.

This was frustrating because the case had already been accepted and investigated. Had the jurisdictional limitation been made clear at the outset, it would have saved a considerable amount of time and effort for everyone involved.

I also found it difficult to obtain a clear explanation of the specific regulatory basis for the decision. The final report contained at least one factual inaccuracy, and I was repeatedly told that the outcome could not change while simultaneously being offered an appeal process, which left me uncertain as to the practical purpose of that appeal.

To be fair, the case handler did answer follow-up questions and remained professional throughout. However, the overall experience left me feeling that consumers need much clearer guidance about what the Communications Ombudsman can and cannot investigate before a case is formally accepted.

In summary, the process was courteous and structured, but it did not provide a substantive resolution to the underlying dispute.

A decision was made based on factually incorrect information. Common sense would tell anyone this should be allowed to be appealed under these circumstances. Communications Ombudsman state it is for me to refer to Ofcom. Ofcom states not in these circumstances because the service provider has done it's bit now they should escalate to Ofcom with their reports so that Ofcom can investigate further. Initially you can self refer regarding wifi / broadband and Ofcom then refer you to your service provider to investigate first. Feels like preferential treatment given the final decision wasn't based on accuracy, fact or the correct process. Neither fair, just or impartial. Leaving consumers to suffer and keep paying for their suffering.if you want to challenge the decision you have to take it to court. Once I have Ofcom's stance in writing that is what I shall do.

A complete waste of time. It doesn't seem to me that they even looked at all my evidence.

Was initially impressed with my experience of the Ombudsman. They were quick, attentive and kept me informed at each stage. My experience soured, however, when they allowed an appeal to be heard which was in CLEAR breach of their own self-stated regulations and procedures, ie. neither new information nor a factual error in the evidence provided. I’m very disappointed in this - a decision arrived at by a flawed process cannot be allowed to stand yet that it is precisely what the Ombudsman permitted. They refused to set aside the resulting decision and I was denied the right to appeal against this. Poor experience and questionable process all round. Beware!

I used the Communications Ombudsman for the first time and was impressed with the interest, consideration and care they took into investigating my dispute. The outcome was positive for me and the investigator from the Ombudsman service made time to call me to discuss the case outcome, whilst advising me of next steps and options. I wouldn’t hesitate to use them again, especially as it was all (from beginning to end), dealt with in a timely manner.

Prompt response and professionalism without discrimination

The Communications Ombudsman process is not fit for purpose. It is structurally incapable of addressing verbal mis‑selling, dismisses consumer testimony using an incorrect definition of “hearsay,” and accepts provider accounts without scrutiny.I was explicitly told the Ombudsman is “not focused on protecting consumers,” which is an extraordinary admission for an organisation whose sole purpose is supposed to be consumer redress.I have escalated the matter to my MP due to the wider regulatory implications. Based on my experience, this service does not provide meaningful protection for consumers, particularly those who rely on verbal information at the point of sale.

In my view they side with the supplier, a total waste of time, hours and hours of work, proof given to them then they say its not enough, you give them more proof then they say, its not the right sort of proof, dont waste your time it only seems to benefit the supplier.

I found the Communications Ombudsman process disappointing and very limited.

My complaint concerned EE applying a 50GB roaming fair-use cap without giving customers a clear, usable way to monitor usage against that cap. The decision accepted that it was reasonable for a customer to want to monitor usage, but then appeared to reduce the issue to whether there is a specific regulation requiring EE to provide a real-time tracker.

That did not feel like a meaningful assessment of whether the provider acted fairly and reasonably. It felt like the process was focused on narrow regulatory minimums rather than consumer fairness.

I also tried to raise a service complaint about the clarity and reasoning of the decision, making clear that I was not asking for the case to be re-decided. This was treated as dissatisfaction with the outcome (despite specifically stating twice that it was not that) and refused.

Based on my experience, the service felt toothless, defensive and not genuinely consumer-focused.

Update: Communications Ombudsman have replied publicly inviting me to contact them, but I had already contacted them directly about the reasoning of the decision and was told this was not a complaint they could accept because it related to the outcome/process, despite me specifically stating it wasn’t. They have my case reference and are welcome to contact me directly if they genuinely wish to review the issue.

You have to appreciate that the CO operate as a limited company, part of the Trust Alliance Group. Reading the employee reviews online, will tell you a great deal about the company. Having read many frustrated customers reviews which emulate our own, we have to wonder who pays the CO to perform the assessment of complaints? It is also important to attribute some of the blame to OFCOM, for not defining performance standards, clearly stating how many days is acceptable, when referring to reinstatement. In cases of slamming, it is clear that there is an issue, with providers hiding behind Openreach who do not have a contract with consumers, or businesses. If for example BT were your provider and you were subject to slamming, you do not have the right to find out who took over your line without permission. This information should be readily available, so that you can raise a complaint of who made an unauthorised request to take over your line. This is something that OFCOM need to review, along with the fairness of BT Group Plc group company contracts. The changes that were implemented in 2023 to allow customers to migrate to a new supplier, have clearly opened up a grey area, or in some cases a very big 'black hole'. Any company could be subject to slamming and left without any services for a number of weeks, which is not acceptable for any company in this digital world. From my recent experience, i have seen factual mistakes in the CO's assessment of our business claim, but I am now aware that the CO, do not investigate, further than the information provided by the customer or the provider. This service from the CO needs to be reviewed by OFCOM and this is something everyone here should raise with their local MP. This process needs to be impartial and assessments should be made on the basis of both evidence and research!

extremely helpful to a 74 year old widowed pensioner

I found the process pretty straightforward, and the notifications I received were helpful. A small blip in uploading supporting evidence and the on-line form, but generally much better than expected. Also proved to be effective as 1p Mobile decided to offer a mutually acceptable resolution, having refused to do so and citing "deadlock" prior to my going to the ombudsman even though I told them I would. Previously 1p had reviewed my complaint and basically dismissed me. So, it worked.