Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B upgraded his mobile phone device with Three on 9 December 2025, trading in his existing Samsung Galaxy valued at £413.00. He expected his original device agreement (36 months from July 2024) to be closed and replaced with a new agreement. However, Three continued to charge him £46.00 monthly for the original agreement alongside the new agreement's charges. Mr B complained that it was not made clear he was taking out a second concurrent device loan rather than replacing his existing agreement. The ombudsman reviewed the upgrade process screenshots and found that the information clearly stated customers must continue paying existing device plan balances until paid off, with a link to check early upgrade fees. The ombudsman upheld Three's position that the two agreements were separate and concurrent, not a replacement, and found no evidence the upgrade process was misleading.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reviewed the screenshots of the upgrade process and found that the information presented was clear that customers with existing device plan payments would need to continue paying until the balance was paid off or pay the balance immediately. The screen included a link allowing customers to check whether early upgrade fees applied. The ombudsman considered that it was not unreasonable to expect customers to take responsibility for checking this information. The return of the handset and its valuation at £413.00, which was applied to reduce the new agreement's monthly payments, demonstrated that the two agreements were separate and concurrent rather than one replacing the other. The ombudsman found no evidence that the upgrade process was misleading or implied that the first credit agreement would be terminated.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website