Communications Ombudsman Opiniões 926

Extremely disappointed with the handling of my communications complaint against Three.

The Ombudsman accepted that my mobile number port took almost four weeks to complete, far beyond normal industry timescales, yet still concluded that £30 compensation was “fair and reasonable”.

The decision focused heavily on the fact I still had partial service on a temporary number, while overlooking the real issue — my longstanding number was not properly transferred for nearly a month. This caused disruption with calls, texts, and services linked to my mobile number.

I also found it frustrating that “technical issues” were accepted without Three providing any meaningful technical explanation or evidence showing why the port failure lasted so long.

The investigation felt one-sided and too accepting of the provider’s explanations rather than properly considering the customer impact.

Overall, the process took time and left me feeling that the inconvenience and stress caused were minimised rather than fairly assessed

My experience with the Communications Ombudsman raised serious concerns regarding procedural fairness, evidential consistency and the overall quality of the review process.

In my case, the original decision acknowledged significant complaint handling failures by BT, proposed removal of adverse credit markers and awarded compensation. Following appeal, the remedy was materially reduced despite no new primary evidence being disclosed.

What I found particularly concerning was the unequal evidential standard applied throughout the review. The Ombudsman accepted BT’s interpretation of disputed events despite no audio evidence ever being disclosed to me, while simultaneously relying on absence of evidence against the consumer in relation to earlier disputed contact.

The review process was also affected by repeated delays, missed deadlines and poor communication.

By the end of the process, I was left with the strong impression that incomplete corporate records and internal interpretations were afforded greater weight than the consumer’s documented chronology and evidence.

Consumers using an ADR scheme should reasonably expect procedural fairness, consistent evidential standards and genuinely impartial review. Unfortunately, my experience did not leave me with confidence in that process.

I would like to sincerely thank the Ombudsman Service, especially case handler Natalie Harari, for the outstanding support and professionalism shown throughout my case.

Natalie took the time to fully understand my situation regarding an incorrectly placed default on my credit file and handled everything with fairness, care, and efficiency. Communication was always clear and reassuring, and I felt listened to and supported throughout the entire process.

Thanks to her hard work and dedication, the default was successfully removed, which has made a huge positive difference for me. I truly appreciate the impartial approach and commitment to achieving a fair outcome.

I highly recommend the Financial Ombudsman Service to anyone needing help resolving a financial dispute.

This is the second time I've used them to complain about EE. On both occassions they have sided with EE despite EE providing no proof that they were right and I was wrong. In latest case the nonsense they came back with was "I haven't been able to prove they have nor have I proven they haven't", so they haven't provided proof that's all you needed to say. EE did not provide me with pre contract information with my contract, I asked for a DSAR to prove they haven't and there was no pre-contract information there and they were unable to provide that to ombudsman. Despite this they still sided with EE as they claimed they only needed to keep sales data for 6 months and as its been 12 months - tough. I only realised they didn't when it came to them ripping me off with the April pay rises, I thought i'd check that I agreed to the high amount but I then realised I never received it. The fact they still sided with EE is proof they are not impartial, they are funded by the networks so its in their interest to keep the cash cow money flowing in.

The ombudsman appears very biased towards the service provider, which I could see in communications between the two organisations where individuals were on first name terms and the ombudsman took whatever excuses the service provider gave and did not stand up to them for me as the complainant. Let's see what Martin Lewis has to say about their attitude

Spent ages filling in their form which would not accept dates for 2025, when my dispute began. Testosterone Mobile sent sn ambiguous offer with 4 options, and no clarity about whether they were alternatives or more than one could be given together. Despite my contacting COS twice asking them to clarify, I was informed I had accepted the offer! Another case sadly, of staff picking out something which indicates they can Clunky give up and pretend their work is done. I wish workers would READ properly. Perhaps it was an AI?

After debating my phone termination fee with Clear business for around 18 months I contacted the Ombudsman who accepted my complaint and a Jacqueline Robinson took up my case, she was very professional and up front in how to go forward and the case was finalised to a very happy conclusion within a matter of days and I would like to thank her for helping me with this matter

I wish I had come on here and read the reviews before I took the time to go through this complete process, for the conclusion to agree with the Network Service provider even though they haven’t been able to offer a complete service coverage for multiple months. This is just lip service for the consumer, when in fact the corporates have the rules written so they can nearly get away with anything. Really disappointed with EE and the way they handled it and obviously the outcome from this service

The were very efficient at dealing with any issues. They were in touch regularly keeping me upto date and the staff were really kind and helpful.
They helped me get a solution very quick

Truly poor service that is clearly not impartial, despite the responses claiming otherwise.

It has now been almost seven months since I took out my internet service, after being told it would take up to 10 days to install. Seven months later, nothing has been done.

Beverly was assigned to handle my case, and the experience was poor from the start. From our initial phone call, it was clear there was a lack of care. She also failed to acknowledge key elements from my complaint in the final response, despite me clearly bullet-pointing everything to make it straightforward. Overall, it felt like a complete waste of time and caused unnecessary stress.

Before responding with another generic message about being impartial, it would be better to acknowledge that your staff are poorly trained, you clearly have no real power to help, and you are about as corrupt as “Trump’s America”.

A complete waste of time. Poor service. Poor experience.

I am very disappointed with how my case was handled by Ombudman, particularly by Matthew.

My concern is not about the outcome, but about the way the investigation was conducted. It appears that Matthew agreed with the company’s position without properly reviewing my evidence. Even now, it is clear that my emails and supporting information were not carefully read or considered.One key issue is regarding my authority. The company claimed that I did not have authority, stating it was only granted in 2026. This is not true I already had authority from 2025. This important detail was not properly verified or acknowledged.
There have also been repeated mistakes in the handling of my case. On the first occasion, I clearly informed a member of staff that I would be away in a Muslim country with limited or no internet access, and that I would respond upon my return. Despite this, the company later claimed I had not complied with the 14- day requirement and closed the case. This was inaccurate and unfair.
Even basic details, such as my communication limitations while travelling, were not properly recorded or considered. These ongoing errors give the impression of a lack of care and attention.What is most concerning is the apparent bias in the process. An organisation like this should review evidence from both sides objectively, without preconceptions. However, in my case, it feels as though the evidence provided by the company was accepted without proper scrutiny, while my evidence was overlooked not just once, but twice in the same case.
This pattern of behaviour is extremely disappointing. It reflects a lack of thoroughness, fairness, and accountability. I would have expected a more balanced and professional approach

The gentleman who helped me, Matthew Kilvington, was very helpful, understanding, prompt and professional. He helped me resolve this very difficult matter and avoid me being ripped off by a unethical phone company. Its an excellent free service and I highly recommend using this if you are having problems with a phone company.

Detailed my complaint, BT tried to increase my monthly payments by 50% as the annual price rise! They then told me to renew before increase was due even though I told them I was still in contract, I was then told by their complaints people that I couldn't renew as I was still in contract and the price rise was a typo and should only be 25%. The Ombudsman process was explained clearly, timely updates and finally a resolution which will be acceptable once BT have implemented the resolution.

I found the experience absolutely outstanding. As soon as I submitted my claim BT made a reasonable offer which I accepted. Denise the representative of the Ombudsman service was outstanding.

Very poor service no impartiality and clearly out of touch with the value and cost if an individuals time where rewards if made don’t take into account of the many hours of work that a claimant has invested before and during the case being considered which equates to well below even the minimum wage - generally biased decisions made from my experience in many different cases brought and an organisation that needs careful scrutiny and review

Disappointing outcome despite clear evidence

I approached the Communications Ombudsman after a significant error by my broadband provider resulted in the loss of my service for over two weeks, along with direct financial costs. While my complaint was upheld and the provider’s mistake was acknowledged, the outcome did not reflect the actual impact of the situation.

The decision appeared inconsistent. On one hand, it accepted that the provider’s failure caused the issue. On the other, it declined to fully recognise the consequences of that failure—particularly the period without service and the additional costs incurred to stay connected. The reasoning that these were not the provider’s responsibility felt difficult to reconcile with the earlier findings.

The compensation awarded was modest and seemed to follow a general range rather than being tailored to the specifics of the case. It did not align with the level of disruption experienced or the evidence provided. There is also a clear sense that the process leans in favour of the business, with outcomes appearing to minimise financial impact on the provider rather than fully compensating the consumer.

The process itself was lengthy and quite bureaucratic, with limited opportunity to challenge or meaningfully escalate concerns once a decision was reached.

Useful as a free service, but expectations should be managed—particularly where the financial impact is more than minimal.

My experience with ROY at the Ombudsman service has been nothing short of useless. After months of dealing with EE’s mistakes, I finally turned to the Ombudsman expecting an independent review. Instead, I received a message so lazy and unprofessional it honestly looked like it was written without even reading my case.

The person (ROY)handling my complaint didn’t address me by name, didn’t acknowledge a single piece of evidence I submitted, and didn’t show any sign that they had actually reviewed anything. They simply sent a copy‑and‑paste message saying my case was closed because of a “break in communication” and an “old referral letter.” That was it. No explanation, no effort, no investigation.

And here’s the part people need to understand:
The Ombudsman only charges a business a fee if they actually investigate a case.
If they close it early, they don’t have to do the work and they don’t have to charge the company. So when they shut down a complaint with a template message, it’s not hard to see why. It’s quicker, easier, and keeps their statistics looking clean.

So no — EE doesn’t “pay” them directly.
But the system is set up in a way where closing cases fast benefits everyone except the consumer.

That’s exactly what happened to me. Instead of helping, they took the quickest route to get rid of the complaint. It felt dismissive, unprofessional, and completely pointless. If this is the level of service people get when they’re already struggling with a company, I genuinely worry for anyone who relies on this organisation — especially vulnerable customers who can’t fight back.

The Ombudsman is supposed to protect consumers. Based on my experience, it feels more like a box‑ticking exercise designed to move cases out of the way as fast as possible.

I am submitting this following a catastrophic breakdown of professional standards and an admitted failure of the investigation process.

Admitted Negligence (Kathryn A): On 07/04/2026, the Dispute Resolution Coach, Kathryn A, admitted in writing: "While I have not reviewed any primary evidence, my understanding of the situation is..." This is a prima facie admission that a Final Decision was issued without reviewing the call recordings or the case file evidence.

Administrative Error: In her decision, Ms. Kathryn A claimed she had "not identified" any statement from EE saying they lacked the original contract. This is factually incorrect; the case file contains two explicit admissions from EE stating they do not possess it. This proves the file was not read.

Contradictory Record-Keeping: After being challenged on her admission, Ms. Kathryn A issued a contradictory statement on 08/04/2026 claiming she had reviewed the evidence. This inconsistency demonstrates a total lack of professional integrity and a failure to maintain a transparent audit trail.

Obstruction of Oversight (Michael B): The Service Improvement Lead, Michael B, has actively obstructed my access to the Independent Assessor. He has attempted to redefine "primary evidence" to cover the Reviewer’s error and is gatekeeping the service complaint process to prevent external scrutiny of this documented failure.

Conclusion: The Ombudsman’s "foundational requirement" to be evidence-led has been abandoned. This case represents a systemic failure of Alternative Dispute Resolution transparency and has been escalated to the Trust Alliance Group executive board and OFCOM.

UPDATE (17/04/26): The company’s reply below is demonstrably false. I have a written email from the Dispute Resolution Coach (Ms Kathryn A) dated 07/04/26 explicitly admitting: "While I have not reviewed any primary evidence, my understanding of the situation is..." To claim they "take great care" and "all evidence is considered" while holding a written admission that they bypassed the evidence is a total failure of integrity. This documented contradiction has been reported to Ofcom and the Ombudsman Association.

Lewiss actively listened to my complaint, discussed options and what the maximum I would gain from the complaint if it was upheld.
Regular updates throughout the process and it was really good to have someone independent to talk to, who understood my situation but spoke with an unbiased as they fact founded from both sides of the complaint.

Waste of tax payers money. They work in cohorts with supplier. Case handler have poor investigation skills.