Not upheld: goods quality and appropriate remedy under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against EE Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6190760 of 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00. goods quality and appropriate remedy under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against EE Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6190760 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | EE Limited |
| Product | fixed sum loan agreement (consumer credit) |
| Claim type | goods quality and appropriate remedy under Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to direct EE Limited to replace the phone. The ombudsman encouraged Mr M and EE Limited to work together to arrange the repair with a loan phone to minimize inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr M purchased a £1,150 phone from EE Limited in April 2025 using a fixed sum loan agreement. Six months later, he reported battery drainage and overheating issues, providing diagnostic screenshots. EE Limited offered to repair the phone with a factory reset, but Mr M refused due to concerns about data loss and requested replacement with a different phone of similar value. The ombudsman found that while the phone appears faulty, physical inspection is necessary to determine if the fault was present at supply. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, repair is a reasonable and proportionate remedy, and replacement with a different make and model is not appropriate. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while the phone appears faulty, it is not clear the fault was present at supply or that the phone was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied. Physical inspection by EE Limited is necessary to determine causation and rule out damage or misuse. Under CRA Section 23, repair is a reasonable remedy when possible and less costly than replacement. A factory reset is not unreasonable as it protects data and may resolve the issue (per manufacturer guidance). The offer of a loan phone mitigates inconvenience. Replacement with a different make and model is not appropriate under the CRA, which contemplates identical replacements, and EE Limited cannot change the financed handset on the agreement.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| EE Limited, all decisions | 103 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website