Not upheld: fraudulent application / scam liability complaint against Telefonica UK Limited (trading as O2)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that O2 unfairly held him liable for a fixed sum loan agreement for an £850 phone after he claimed he was coerced by scammers into applying for it. Mr A stated the phone was collected by the scammers who promised reimbursement that never materialised. O2 declined to cancel the agreement, and the Investigator did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman found that while Mr A was misled by the scammers, O2 made no errors in the sale process, the application was submitted by Mr A, and the phone was delivered to his property with his apparent knowledge and consent. Therefore, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and found it reasonable for O2 to require repayment of the outstanding balance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Mr A was told he would be reimbursed and sympathies lie with his situation, the application was not disputed to have been submitted by Mr A himself. The phone was delivered to his property and a PIN sent to him was entered at delivery, suggesting his awareness and likely consent for a household member to hand over the phone. O2 made no errors in the sale process, and the misrepresentations came from a third-party known to Mr A, not from O2. Therefore, it is not reasonable to hold O2 liable for the third-party's fraudulent conduct.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website