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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss K complained to Telefonica about a fixed sum loan for a mobile device after claiming the courier manipulated her vulnerable family member into providing a security code and took the package without proper delivery. Telefonica relied on courier delivery records and a photograph showing the package being handed over at Miss K's front door, and refused to release Miss K from the loan obligation. The ombudsman found that Telefonica's evidence carried more weight than Miss K's allegations, particularly given inconsistencies in Miss K's account and the courier's confirmation of proper delivery procedures. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint but reminded Telefonica to treat Miss K's financial circumstances with forbearance as she continues repaying the loan.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, finding that Telefonica's courier delivery records and photograph carried more weight than Miss K's allegations of manipulation. While acknowledging Miss K's concerns about A's vulnerability and the inconsistency in her account (initially arranging the security code for A, later claiming she gave no authority), the ombudsman found the courier's evidence of successful delivery at the front door to be conclusive. The fact that Miss K may not be using the device does not counter the evidence that delivery occurred at her home address. The ombudsman also noted that Telefonica's investigation timeframe was reasonable given the individual circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website