Partially upheld: misleading information regarding contract terms; accessibility and communication barriers; alleged breach of contract and Equality Act 2010 complaint against Telefonica UK Limited trading as O2

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W complained that Telefonica provided misleading information about PAC code activation, causing her to activate early on 8 April 2025 instead of waiting until 22 April 2025, which triggered immediate payment of the full outstanding device plan balance instead of allowing continued monthly instalments. She also complained about difficulty making repayments due to health-related inability to communicate by phone and inaccessible payment systems. The ombudsman found Telefonica was not reasonably clear about activation timing (evidenced by a deleted call recording) and that subsequent correspondence exacerbated her frustration, but rejected her claims that the agreement should be voided or that she was denied reasonable payment options. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, ordering Telefonica to remove adverse credit information once the balance is repaid and pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Telefonica was not reasonably clear about the PAC code activation timing, particularly given the deleted call recording and Miss W's explicit prior statement about wanting to continue monthly payments. This confusion caused distress and inconvenience. However, the ombudsman rejected claims that the agreement should be voided, finding Miss W was aware of her liability for the device and was offered reasonable alternative payment methods (bank transfer, live chat) despite her inability to use phone communication. The ombudsman could not determine whether Telefonica breached equality or accessibility laws, as this would require court determination, but considered relevant law when assessing fairness. The ombudsman found £100 compensation appropriate for the frustration and emotional impact caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website