Veste

Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against EE Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6342315 of 2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against EE Limited. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6342315
Decision date2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00
FirmEE Limited
ProductPersonal loan
Claim typeGoods and services under S75
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyEE Limited must collect the phone from Mrs J and repair it at no further cost to her, and pay £100 compensation to reflect impaired use and inconvenience caused by the fault

Summary

Mrs J purchased a mobile phone from EE in April 2025 using a device plan loan and reported it faulty in May 2025 due to dropping calls and network issues. EE offered repair or replacement with an airtime discount, but Mrs J requested additional guarantees including a replacement handset, clear timeline, and partial refund. The ombudsman found the phone breached the implied terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by not being of satisfactory quality and upheld the complaint. EE must repair the phone at no cost and pay £100 compensation for impaired use, which the ombudsman considered fair given Mrs J's actual usage data and the phone's £560 cost.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The phone does not conform to the contract as it fails to meet the implied terms of satisfactory quality under the CRA. Since the fault was reported outside 30 days, Mrs J is entitled to request repair or replacement. Repair is a proportionate remedy that does not result in Mrs J receiving better goods than originally intended. The £100 compensation reflects over 50% discount on the phone's annual cost for the first year of impaired use, which is fair given the actual usage data showing Mrs J could still use the phone at times. EE offered a suitable remedy early (June 2025) so no additional compensation for poor service is warranted.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
EE Limited, all decisions11043%
Goods and services under S75, all decisions19,87236%
Personal loan, all decisions23,64329%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website