Upheld: warranty claim handling, product quality, failure to signpost manufacturer warranty, poor customer service complaint against EE Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M purchased a flip phone for £875 using a fixed sum loan in September 2024. When the phone developed a screen fault in April 2025, EE's approved repairer rejected the warranty claim citing minor wear and tear, and Mrs M paid £270 for repairs. The phone developed another screen fault in June 2025. In October 2025, the manufacturer repaired the phone free of charge under its one-year warranty, replacing the screen, frame and battery. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding EE should have advised Mrs M to contact the manufacturer when the first fault occurred, and that the phone's early failure indicated it was not of satisfactory quality at delivery. EE was directed to refund the £270 repair cost and pay £100 compensation for poor customer service.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality and durable. A brand new phone should be in perfect condition and free from minor defects. The phone developed faults within seven months of purchase, falling within the six-month presumption period that goods did not conform to the contract. The manufacturer S's decision to repair the phone free of charge under warranty, and the extensive nature of repairs required (screen, frame, battery replacement), suggests the phone was not of satisfactory quality at delivery. EE failed to advise Mrs M to contact the manufacturer when she first reported the fault in April 2025, which would have been a reasonable action under Consumer Duty. The fact that S did not consider the minor markings to hinges and casing as the cause of the fault undermines R's warranty rejection. EE's poor record-keeping and inaccurate information about repair costs caused additional distress.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website