Not upheld: unauthorized borrowing / apparent authority to borrow complaint against Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6358308 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorized borrowing / apparent authority to borrow complaint against Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6358308 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three |
| Product | fixed sum loan |
| Claim type | unauthorized borrowing / apparent authority to borrow |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. However, the ombudsman reminded Three of their responsibility to treat Mr A's current financial circumstances with due consideration and forbearance, including working with Mr A to make affordable repayments if he cannot make a lump sum payment. |
Summary
Mr A complained that a fixed sum loan for a mobile handset was taken out in his name without his authorization by an unknown third party. The loan was for approximately £1,350 with monthly repayments of £37 over three years. Mr A claimed he did not receive the handset and only became aware of the loan in May 2025 after 16 months of payments totalling £600. Three argued that Mr A had authorized his family member to take out the loan, as evidenced by the family member's access to his account, the delivery of the handset to his home address, and his consistent monthly repayments. The ombudsman found that while the evidence was not conclusive, on balance it supported Three's position that Mr A had given actual or apparent authority for the loan, particularly given the significant amount of money paid over an extended period. The complaint was not upheld, though the ombudsman reminded Three to treat Mr A's financial circumstances with forbearance.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to determine what most likely happened. While acknowledging that Mr A had authorized his family member to access his account, the ombudsman found that the evidence supported Three's position that Mr A had given actual or apparent authority for the loan. Key factors included: (1) the same family member consistently contacted Three across multiple calls; (2) the security code was sent to the family member's telephone number and read back during the application; (3) the handset was delivered to Mr A's home address; (4) loan documentation was sent to Mr A's email address; (5) Mr A made consistent monthly repayments totalling £600 over 16 months, which the ombudsman found Mr A should have noticed despite his illness; and (6) the overall circumstances suggested Mr A had authorized the family member to take out the loan on his behalf.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three, all decisions | 6 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website