Not upheld: faulty goods and appropriate remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against EE Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6233587 of 2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00. faulty goods and appropriate remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against EE Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6233587 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | EE Limited |
| Product | fixed sum loan (consumer credit for mobile phone purchase) |
| Claim type | faulty goods and appropriate remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | EE Limited should complete the repair of the phone at no cost to Ms F, or alternatively, provide the 'Good As New' replacement handset if Ms F prefers. EE's apology for the unavailability of a temporary loan handset is sufficient for that aspect of the complaint. |
Summary
Ms F purchased a brand-new mobile phone for approximately £1,200 in August 2025 using a fixed sum loan agreement with EE Limited. She reported various issues with the phone between August and October 2025, including MMS problems and unexpected power-offs. EE offered to repair the phone without charge or replace it with a 'Good As New' handset, but Ms F rejected both offers and demanded a brand-new replacement. The ombudsman found that EE's remedies were fair and in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the fault was reported within three months of supply and the 'Good As New' replacement (used for up to two weeks with no known faults) was a proportionate alternative to repair. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality. Since Ms F reported a fault within three months of supply, it is reasonable to assume the fault was present at the time of supply. EE's offer to repair the phone is a fair remedy in line with statutory rights. The alternative offer of a 'Good As New' replacement (a handset used for up to two weeks with no known faults and never returned for repair) is proportionate and fair, particularly given Ms F was able to use the faulty handset for two to three months before reporting the issue. A brand-new replacement is not necessary in these circumstances.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| EE Limited, all decisions | 103 | 40% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website