Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against EE Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6440519 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against EE Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6440519 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | EE Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | EE Limited must: (1) Collect the device at no cost to Miss W; (2) End the finance agreement with nothing further to pay; (3) Refund all monthly payments made since 25 October 2025 on a pro rata basis; (4) Reimburse the £25 inspection fee; (5) Pay £100 compensation for avoidable distress and inconvenience; (6) Ensure any adverse information is removed from Miss W's credit file; (7) Pay 8% simple interest on all refunded and reimbursed amounts from the date of each payment until settlement. |
Summary
Miss W purchased a device via a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement with EE in February 2025. In October 2025, she reported battery overheating and rapid drain issues. EE declined warranty repair citing cosmetic damage, without giving Miss W an opportunity to provide evidence of the fault. An independent inspection report commissioned by Miss W in January 2026 confirmed the battery was faulty and not caused by physical damage. EE did not offer repair until March 2026, five months after the issue was reported. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding EE breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by supplying goods not of satisfactory quality and failing to offer timely remedies. EE was directed to end the finance agreement, refund monthly payments since October 2025, reimburse the inspection fee, pay £100 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that EE breached its obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by failing to ensure the device was of satisfactory quality. The device developed a faulty battery within eight months of supply, which a reasonable person would not expect. EE's failure to give Miss W an opportunity to provide evidence of the fault was unfair. The independent inspection report supported that the battery was faulty and not caused by physical damage. EE's remedies (repair and replacement) were offered too late (five months after the issue was reported), making rejection of the device and termination of the agreement the appropriate remedy. The ombudsman rejected EE's concerns about the validity of the independent report and found it more likely than not that the device was inherently faulty at supply.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| EE Limited, all decisions | 110 | 43% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 23,643 | 29% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website