Not upheld: disputed goods return and liability for credit agreement; reporting of missed payments to credit reference agencies complaint against EE Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6155015 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. disputed goods return and liability for credit agreement; reporting of missed payments to credit reference agencies complaint against EE Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6155015 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | EE Limited |
| Product | fixed sum loan (credit agreement for phone purchase) |
| Claim type | disputed goods return and liability for credit agreement; reporting of missed payments to credit reference agencies |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to require EE to cancel the credit agreement or remove missed payment information from Mr D's credit record. The ombudsman accepted EE's apology for the missed call and did not require further action on that matter. The ombudsman reminded EE of FCA requirements regarding forbearance for customers experiencing financial hardship and suggested Mr D discuss options with EE. |
Summary
Mr D purchased a phone and watch from EE in September 2025, financing the phone with a £1,000 fixed sum loan. He attempted to return both devices within 30 days at a designated courier drop-off store, but the store's QR code scanner was not working and provided no receipt. EE subsequently informed Mr D they had no record of receiving either device and that the QR code was never scanned. Mr D complained that it was unfair for EE to hold him liable for the credit agreement. The ombudsman found that while the evidence was incomplete, Mr D failed to provide corroborating evidence of return beyond his testimony, and EE's records supported their position that the devices were not received, making their decision to hold him liable fair on the balance of probabilities.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, acknowledging that the evidence was incomplete and inconclusive. While Mr D's testimony was consistent, he provided no corroborating evidence such as a receipt from the courier store. EE's records showing the QR code was never scanned—an essential part of the returns process—supported their position that the devices were not received. The ombudsman concluded that EE had considered all available information and reached a fair outcome based on the evidence available, noting that without formal court procedures, it was difficult to reach firm conclusions about what actually occurred.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| EE Limited, all decisions | 103 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website