Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Telefonica UK Limited trading as O2

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F purchased a device costing over £2,000 on a 47-month credit agreement with O2 in early 2023. In September 2025, over two and a half years later, she reported a faulty charging port. O2 declined to repair it under warranty, and a repair quote of close to £750 was provided with O2 offering £200 contribution. An inspection revealed physical damage to the device. The ombudsman found O2 reasonably declined the claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as Miss F provided no evidence the device was faulty when supplied and the statutory six-month presumption period had long expired. However, the ombudsman acknowledged O2's communication was unclear and caused avoidable inconvenience, and considered the £200 compensation already paid to be fair resolution.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies goods must be of satisfactory quality when supplied. After six months, the burden of proof shifts to the consumer to demonstrate the device was faulty when supplied. Miss F reported the fault over two and a half years after purchase, and O2's inspection found physical damage. Without evidence from Miss F that the device was faulty on supply, and given the physical damage found, O2 reasonably declined the claim. However, the ombudsman acknowledged O2's communication was unclear and caused avoidable inconvenience, but considered the £200 already paid to be fair compensation for this.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website