Communications Ombudsman Avis 923

This Ombudsman is obviously biased. They assume everything the company tells them is true even without evidence but they reject the customer's complaint on the basis there is no 'evidence' even though they had email chains where I referred to a key phone call took place and BT replied multiple times. They deliberatly ignored these emails so that they could side with BT.

BT also have recordings of my phone calls and they reviewed these when looking at my complaint. Then just because they withheld them from the regulator, the regulator said there was no evidence the call happened. Like someone else says on here they're worse than the company themselves!

When I provided evidence via a phone bill they said it was too late. I was wondering how BT had the nerve to changed the narrative as soon as I said I was going to the regulator - they previously admitted they were at fault but then said they didn't accept responsibility. Now that I know how the Ombudsman works, this all makes sense.

My case handler was Maria she was awful and so was her manager.

This organisation is not resourced to cope with complex or long term complaints. Do not waste your time.

UPDATE: 2 Feb 2026
Thank you for your reply:
My review isn’t about impartiality or whether the decision was explained — it was. The issue is that in my case a fault persisted for over five years, was accepted by all parties, and yet the outcome focused on whether the provider followed the same process each time, even though that process repeatedly failed.
As the saying goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That’s exactly how this felt.
If a company can deliver the same poor outcome for years and still be judged to have acted reasonably because it followed process, then complex, long-term complaints are effectively unsolvable. That’s the limitation my review highlights.

Web site appalling, difficult to navigate, communication even worse - interpersonal skills of staff on the phone non existent, monosyllabic tone of voice.
Very quick to point out what they can't do and nothing positive about what they can do
This was an issue about a major communication company giving unhelpful, false information and expectations about planned maintenance to mobile services and the company concerned failing to provide adequate resilience in their service to ensure their customers suffered the minimum of outage
Abysmal experience

Superb communication and engagement with my case. I dealt with the same person throughout and he was knowledgeable and fair.

This ombudsman is worse than the company that I'm complaining about! Why bother!

My complaint was that Virgin Media, as a condition for reducing a substantial increase in my monthly TV & wi-fi contract, said that a SIM card would be included in the deal that 'Won't cost you anything'. And it didn't - for six months, until the bills started arriving from their sister-company O2. I had put the SIM card into the bin when it arrived, so it hadn't been used, but despite many calls to O2 explaining the mis-selling by Virgin and the SIM never having been used, the bills kept coming and eventually the threat of legal action and a black mark on my credit rating. So I went to the Ombudsman for help - and they did subsequently negotiate a settlement, but they did it through O2 and completely ignored the initial mis-selling aspect of the Virgin Media offer. So the problem was resolved, but with nothing to stop Virgin Media continuing to adopt this mis-selling procedure in the future.

I reported my dispute after 8wks of being stonewalled by the company & within weeks of my case being accepted had a resolution sorted.

Still in the process but I can't fault the Ombudsman. Professional & a friendly website where you can track your claim & you can actually speak to someone on the phone.

Three wouldn't acknowledge the issue regarding a return at the end of contract.
Demanding money and threatening collections for something we didn't have. Their communication with me and amongst themselves was awful.
The ombudsman got us the rightful outcome and saved me the £105 three was trying to take from me for no fault of my own.
All I will say is. If you do use the service then be prepared by collecting every peice of communication with your isp/phone provider as you'll need it.

Felt my experience as an autistic woman was completely minimised but sadly very used to this being the case.

My case worker was extremely helpful and the timeline for the process was met. This was a last resort as Virgin Media customer service had been uncommunicative and had refused to engage with their own procedures. As the facts of my case weren't disputed the claim went in my favour.

The initial call seemed positive but the process took a long time even though I supplied plenty of evidence.
The case was handled by 2 operatives, the second of which said I had to sort out the problem hiring an electrician. After weeks of waiting.
The final conclusion was for the company to pay me £30 for inconvenience. I am still waiting for the refund but they have not checked that I am satisfied. I still have another 12 months of my contract to run and feel very let down by both the ombudsman and Trooli.

Simple process to follow. Good initial call and feedback online. All completed within the expected timeframe.
I did feel I had a rock-solid case with evidence to support it. If you don't keep every shred of evidence (screenshots, emails, chat logs) then you could be very frustrated by this process as it will come down to "I said: they said" ... and you won't get a decent resolution

11 months of issues with 02.still not resolved offered £30 which is clearly the standard. Ombudsman closed the case and still battling with billing issues and as tied into a contract nothing i can do.

Submitted a detailed dispute against Lightspeed Broadband for mis-selling: explicit doorstep assurance of improved Xbox gaming/multiplayer, zero mention of CGNAT causing Strict NAT and breaking hosting/joining in most titles. Evidence included:

• Witness statement confirming the sales conversation
• Xbox screenshots proving Strict NAT and failed multiplayer
• Contract/terms with no CGNAT disclosure (only vague “static IP paid add-on”)
• Provider admission CGNAT not discussed
Ombudsman did not uphold. Reasoning: CGNAT is “industry-standard” and not a material limitation for gaming; no “objective evidence” of specific guarantee; cooling-off period + terms supposedly sufficient.
This ignores:
• CRA 2015 ss.9–11 (fit for particular purpose stated)
• Ofcom C1.5 (pre-contract disclosure of significant limitations)
• Microsoft docs confirming Strict NAT severely restricts multiplayer
• Many FTTP providers offer public IPv4 default on consumer plans

The decision treats oral assurances + witness as irrelevant, non-disclosure as acceptable, and known gaming breakage as trivial. It protects the provider at consumer expense.

Trustpilot shows 2.8/5 average (850+ reviews), with frequent complaints of bias towards providers, predetermined outcomes, poor investigation, and box-ticking. My case fits the pattern: strong consumer evidence dismissed in favour of provider position.

If you face mis-selling, technical limitations, or sales non-disclosure in broadband/mobile, expect little from Communications Ombudsman. They function more as a low-cost shield for providers than independent redress. Consider court (small claims) for real accountability – ADR here is often futile.

***Your response makes absolutely no sense or even acknowledges anything that was said which further indicates your service is not fit for purpose and you need auditing throughly***

Excellent outcome.

Was a very smooth process and I was regularly updated on my case. They got me a fair resolution.

At this time I am awaiting a decision from the Ombudsman regarding my case . To date the service and process has been first class and worthy of s 5 star rating . All points so far to a satisfactory outcome but that is yet to come .

No real effort was made to understand and investigate if the customer had indeed been sold an in-effective service from EE.

It was purely transactional. Hear my point of and view, send to EE, wait for a response- that's it. Pointless service.

Rubbish - I uploaded all of my communications with YouFibre, explained the ISP's total ignorance of my complaint and, not withstanding this, the Communications Ombudsman failed to criticise them. A total echo chamber that is not fit for purpose with a clearly predetermined outcome. Their arbitrary deadlines for responses were a clear authoritarian red flag.

Then, despite stating that I needed more time to reply owing to disability, they issued a triggering decision over Christmas and told the ISP they didn't have to compensate me at all after I didn't reply within that arbitrary time.

God knows who they got to investigate the complaint, they had the skills of a chocolate teapot and a total lack of respect for me as the customer and it seems i'm not alone.

It's little wonder that ISP service in the UK is going down the pan when there is a reliance by regulators on this facade.