Not upheld: breach of contract / failure to supply goods complaint against Telefonica UK Limited (trading as O2)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a £1,500 phone from O2 using a fixed sum loan agreement in September 2025. Upon delivery on 3 October 2025, Mr A claimed the phone was missing from the package, containing only a folded cardboard box. O2 declined to provide a refund or replacement, citing their weight checks, pre-dispatch checks, and lack of tampering evidence. Mr A had previously reported two other missing phones from O2 orders within the preceding months, which O2 had initially cancelled but later questioned. The ombudsman, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found O2's evidence more persuasive and concluded O2 acted fairly in holding Mr A liable for the credit agreement, declining to uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, acknowledging the evidence was incomplete and inconclusive. While recognizing it was possible the device could have been removed at the warehouse or by the courier, the ombudsman found O2's explanation more likely: the weight checks, pre-dispatch checks, lack of tampering evidence, and courier's lack of reported issues supported that the phone was likely delivered. The ombudsman noted the pattern of three missing phones gave O2 legitimate cause for concern and that O2 had considered all available information before reaching their decision. The ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence to safely conclude O2 acted unfairly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website