Not upheld: goods quality and durability under Consumer Rights Act 2015; credit agreement terms; customer service complaint against Telefonica UK Limited (trading as O2)

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S purchased a phone from O2 in September 2023 using a fixed sum loan agreement. In March 2025, the phone's volume control malfunctioned. The manufacturer's report confirmed no misuse but did not establish the fault was present at delivery. O2 declined to repair or replace the phone for free, offering paid repair with a three-week turnaround instead. Miss S subsequently purchased a new phone using a new credit agreement, claiming she was forced to do so. The ombudsman found O2 acted fairly under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in declining the free repair, as the fault was reported 17 months after purchase and the evidence did not support a manufacturing defect at point of delivery. The ombudsman also rejected Miss S's claim regarding the new credit agreement, finding she had alternatives and failed to use the cooling-off period. The ombudsman upheld O2's position that their compensation offers totalling over £1,000 were fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which places the burden on the consumer to prove a fault was present or developing at point of delivery when reported more than six months after purchase. The manufacturer's report, based only on visual inspection, did not establish this. The ombudsman found O2's position reasonable given the 17-month gap and lack of conclusive evidence of a manufacturing defect. Regarding the new credit agreement, the ombudsman found Miss S was not forced to purchase it as alternatives existed (repair or temporary replacement), and she failed to use the 14-day cooling-off period. The ombudsman considered O2's compensation offers (totalling over £1,000) to be fair and reasonable for any service failings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website