Communications Ombudsman Reviews 

I brought a case against my former mobile provider with evidence most complainants could only dream of. The company referred me to a debt collection agency and put a marker on my credit file over a misunderstanding with a final bill they had never notified me about. Throughout the complaint they repeatedly claimed to have sent me letters and emails yet when asked to prove this, they never produced a single one. Their own internal correspondence, from a senior member of staff, admitted no evidence of these communications could be found.

So, enforcement action against a customer who was never notified, backed by claims of correspondence that demonstrably never existed. About as clear cut as a case gets.

The outcome? My financial claim was not upheld. The company's complaint handling was found to be substandard, and I was awarded £50 described as "goodwill." Think about that word. Goodwill is what you offer when you've done nothing wrong. When findings of fact go against a company, the remedy is supposed to be compensation, not a token gesture with a friendly label.

Here's what I learned about how this scheme really works:

1. It has no power to punish providers. A company can take debt action against you without notice, make claims it cannot evidence, damage your credit file and the total cost is £50 and an apology. When wrongdoing is cheaper than compliance, that isn't a remedy scheme, it's a licence.

2. The accountability only runs one way. If you decline the decision, YOU lose the remedy and face court at your own cost. The scheme loses nothing. The provider which funds the scheme loses nothing. Every incentive points in one direction, and it isn't towards the consumer.

3. Reading other reviews here, my experience is clearly not an outlier. Complaints narrowed, findings softened, remedies that bear no relation to the conduct proven.

Use the scheme if you must, it's free and the credit file correction was worth having. But go in with your eyes open: this is not an advocate for consumers, and don't expect a remedy that reflects what actually happened to you. I have lodged a formal complaint about the scheme itself and copied it to Ofcom, which approves these ADR schemes. I'd encourage anyone with a similar experience to do the same that's the only feedback loop these organisations can't ignore.

I raised a complaint about BT. The case handler called me and was hostile and combative because I had deleted a prior case. But that was on the advice of another case handler, and so I was left feeling somewhat hectored. She subsequently ruled there was no case against BT but disregarded recorded evidence which seemed to suggest the complete opposite. So I appealed. And the appeal was unsuccessful, but for entirely different reasons that the first investigator didn't mention at all. And so the first ruling was erroneous in my view, and the second shifted the goal posts. And now there is no further avenue to appeal the second ruling which I believe is also erroneous. And that's how they wrap things up folks. The first case handler said she knew a lot of people at BT. An un guarded casual comments which might explain the outcome. If you're expecting a hearing from people who are impartial and who consider all of the evidence, then I'm afraid this is no longer the forum for that.

The investigation failed to address the central issue
I would not waste your time taking a complaint to the Ombudsman, and would suggest seeking an alternative pathway. BT must Wine and Dine them

Communications Ombudsman should be here to help but they don't care! Kynex defrauds customers by having fake positive reviews online (clik on to the people who write positive reviews and you will see that some of them only review Kynex each year; others review it many times over all positive). These positive reviews help Kynex get people to sign their contracts on the phone for 3 years. Then Kynex does not pay the monthly bonuses to help offset the really high mobile charges they sign you up for with providers such as O2. O2 knows about this I personally provided O2 with evidence of no payments and all the emails saying they will pay but do not.... O2 is regulated by Ofcom and the Communications Ombudsman and has the responsibility to not work with criminal organisations- YET - O2 could care less litteraly, I have emails from O2 saying its not their problem. The Communications Ombudsman could force O2 to stop working with Kynex but they don't care either... so what is the point of the Communications Ombudsman

Confusing process to follow and very limited powers for holding companies accountable.

The handlers achieved results That I had been trying to get for
6 weeks providing the same
Information but was ignored. As soon as Ombudsman became involved attitude changed.

Ombudsman's initial decision ignored facts, and the appeal appears to have been handled by the same person that made the original decision and has come down in BT's favour . . . by ignoring facts again. And now the "Decline to accept Ombudsman Decision" on the case web-page isn't working meaning that they will not be writing to BT before the next billing cycle commences, possibly leaving me liable to another advance rental payment. The Communication Ombudsman Service has been captured by its main client . . BT . . and is handing out "Rubber- stamped" decisions for BT. The whole legal ADR process is being brought into disrepute and disgrace by this corrupt relationship. The "Service" I have been provided with is nothing like properly run ADR. They need a public review by the Lord Chancellor and closing down and sacking the whole lot. And all I wanted to do is terminate my account with BT because they engineered and/or tolerated a situation where my broadband and telephone service and My BT account was totally corrupted and rendered unusuable earlier in 2026. BT Executive Complaints railroaded my complaint to the BT CEO, without due consideration, to the Ombudsman because, I believe, its cheaper for them to do so. The cause of this sitaution, I believe, is that BT wanted to avoid possible "High" civil engineering costs associated with uprating my service to FTTP - so they sabotaged my existing FTTC service after declaring a "Stop-sell" on FTTC on my exchange . . in the hope that I would leave . . .giving rise to my initial complaint. And, this occurred, just over a year after BT compelled me to switch to their Digital Voice Service in March 2025 ( . . . .Forcing me to abandon my analogue telephone enabled BT to side-step the legislation regarding the legal Universal Service Obligation that applies to analogue phones i.e. all part of of their devilish plan). BT and the Communication Ombudsman are not to be trusted. BT's only aim now appears to be funnelling revenue to shareholders, no matter what the effect on the customer. And the Ombudsman aim seems to be to facilitate BT actions, however immoral or illegal. Contrary to the message in their current advertising campaign, the only thing BT are "Brilliant" at is aggravating and ripping-of long-standing customers with a view to customer shedding and stonewalling and corrupting the complaints system. BT ought to be broken-up, they have morphed into an evil neo-liberal "Stand-and_deliver" monopoly. Ditto the Ombudsman service which is funded completely by the industry i.e. you are paying for this disgraceful Ombudsman Service in your telecomms bills.
And all this was done against a background of them "Losing" 200,000 existing customers in 2025 and expecting to lose the same number in 2026 . . according to the statement of the BT CEO . . any fluffing wonder the way I have been treated.

This enduring and widespread issue is attributable to successive governments who allowed broadband to be introduced on patchwork basis allowing internet Service Providers, such as BT, to "Cherry-pick" where and when they introduced the service. This has now resulted in this absolute farago excuse for a service, and has resulted in some areas of the country being heavily over-provisioned with broadband and other areas totally ignored. Just imagine if the conversion to North Sea Gas had been handled the same way in the late 1960s and early 1970s . . . we'd all be sitting around warming our dinners over camp fires. The blame for this lies squarely with the GB Government.

If the system allowed I would give them minus stars for the way I, a customer of 41 years, have been treated . absolutely despicable and corrupt, both the Ombudsman and BT.

The investigation failed to properly analyse the central issue of my complaint and instead accepted EE’s explanation without adequately addressing the evidence I provided. Most concerning, EE themselves ultimately removed the adverse credit marker and corrected all three credit reference agencies, yet the Ombudsman concluded there had been no failure warranting criticism. I expected a more thorough and independent investigation, particularly where a consumer’s credit record was at stake.

Don’t bother! They will side with the conglomerates! They hate small businesses and blatantly take bribes from the big companies! Shocking service!

I raised a case with the communications ombudsman regarding my mobile provider. The first case worker who looked at my case explained the process clearly and was helpful. Based on his written analysis, I felt he understood the case fully. My complaint was upheld and I accepted the proposed remedy.

The company then appealed this decision, so the case was reviewed by a more senior colleague. Again my complaint was upheld, but the remedy was amended. The wording of the analysis and remedy decision repeatedly made reference to the warranty, which is irrelevant to my complaint. This was either through the case worker not understanding the case at all, sloppy wording or it was deliberate to allow the company to get away with not providing a satisfactory remedy. I asked for clarification on this point and received written confirmation that there shouldn't have been any reference to the warranty.

Of course, the company has now responded by sending me through the warranty process. A process which I have already been through once before (and the ombudsman agreed did not lead to a satisfactory outcome). I have gone back to the ombudsman to report this but they are not being helpful at all. They have basically said -well they might do the right thing this time!

I feel really let down in a situation that has already been frustrating. Now I am having to take this to small claims court.

For what is meant to be an independent complaint review process, the Ombudsman have been far from this. They contacted the company - Three - once for their position with regards to my complaint, the company gave incorrect information to the Ombudsman and I provided evidence to support this. I was shocked that my evidence was ignored/dismissed by the Ombudsman without any fact finding process. In the Ombudsman refusing to consider or investigate my evidence, this showed total bias towards the company. In their responses to me challenging this, the Ombudsman made me out to be a liar, even though the evidence contradicted this, and without going into a lengthy account with regards to my complaint against Three, in their recorded response the Ombudsman stated that Three did not have to stick to their terms and conditions which baffles me. My complaint with regards to how my case was handled apparently went though an independent review process, although from updates I think the case handler was being tutored and this was done by the case assessors “coach”, and as such they were reviewing their own decision making. On being challenged over this and wanting to escalate the complaint, I was told there is no process for this. It seems ridiculous that the Ombudsman are not held accountable for their actions, there is no formal complaint process other than my dissatisfaction noted on my case, and I wasted 3 months on a pointless complaint escalation process, involving the Ombudsman when there was no impartiality from them. I would not waste your time taking a complaint to the Ombudsman, and would suggest seeking an alternative resolution pathway.

This industry is broken and the weakness of the regulator and ombudsman are possibly the biggest reason. The fact that I've had to use this service 3 times now tells its own story. Once they got it right. Twice they've now got it badly wrong. Any gap to decline a case will be hunted out. The first error was ... we're not technical and can't make a ruling on Virgin Media... well you have to be technical? This is providing oversight of tech provisions? The second wrong, (this one), they incorrectly ruled that a Openreach / BT Permission To Work order that could not be seen by me ... wasn't fact? It was a choice that I couldn't see it apparently? They failed to even analyse the permission to work details (that I have never seen) to see if they were reasonable? It absolutely beggars belief.

They fail to also show any control over Openreach and rule that BT has no control over them? That doesn't stand up in a court of law? If you enter into a contract to provide a service you have to be in control of your suppliers. Water companies are getting multiple million pound fines for not performing. This service dishes out £25-£100 here and there? The industry is laughing at the situation. It's outrageous and not what you'd expect of a civilised country. These providers are absolutely laughing at the soft soft approach and laugh even more when 100% valid cases are declined as it didn't meet the checklist. These broadband providers would score zero against most of the 6 TCF principles the FCA has introduced to manage our finance world.

If I apply the six outcomes of TCF to this complaint this is the outcome
1. Culture and governance. Clients are confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the firm culture - failed. Virgin Media didn't even bother to respond to my executive complaint? BT allocated someone who had no interest in it. Not at all the kind of organisations we can trust.
2. Product design - failed. BT & Virgin Media have both sold me a product they were unable to deliver.
3. Clear communication - failed. I have never seen the Permission to Work order and, from snippets said, believe it to be 100% incorrect. It fails to recognise that the drive they wanted to dig up is shared by 3 houses, and fails to provide most of the things it should do. Unfair timescales were given before the order was closed down.
4. Suitable advice. Failed - Virgin Media don't respond. BT do allow you to escalate but they then ignore you. I had a lengthy conversation with a BT call handler and in the end insisted I wanted this to be logged as a complaint and escalated. He did that and then immediately closed it, no escalation. Both organisations are poisonous and ungoverned. Openreach has powers that are ridiculous. Not customer facing and performs dreadfully?
5. Performance and standards. Failing badly - poisonous dreadfully managed companies who have no reasonable guard rails in which to operate. OFCOM & Comms Ombudsman together in harmony achieving nothing.
6. Claims, complaints and changes - dreadful. The BT handlers were laughing at me and replying with rubbish to close this down. Virgin Media were even worse and never even bothered replying. They can take money from my account every month but don't have to provide a service?

My summary is that the service the Comms Ombudsman performs is badly broken. If it was closed down it would make no difference. A complete waste of my time and yours. The rules the handlers work with are ridiculous.

There's a guy dealing with executive complaints at BT called Buddy, (there may be several called that). If his complaints handling was audited by a person who works in the financial services industry operating within TCF under the ask of the FCA, it's likely, based on this experience, that the majority of cases he handles would fail. He sees his job as closing complaints down not handling them. He'd probably be performance managed and given a warning or dismissed... it's that bad.

As a result of the ruling on these 2 cases, (I was trying to move to BT as my Virgin Media service is poor), I'm trapped to one provider. I effectively have no meaningful broadband competition available because Openreach cancellation mechanics and Permission To Work failure have locked the property into a single provider.

Whilst I know there is NOT generally a legal right to multiple providers, I also know that there is:

- a regulatory expectation around competition,
- infrastructure access,
- and reasonable broadband availability.

The Ofcom Broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) does not guarantee:

Fibre 900,
or provider choice,

BUT it does recognise that consumers should not be left without decent connectivity. Which is where I am now?

Waste of time. Beverly never responded to our messages. After waiting weeks the outcome was in favour of the large corporation and we got nothing.

(The original claim was about EE. We called and spent over an hour talking to their cheap hired foreign call centre staff to cancel a phone, was told it was cancelled, eventually, and then they kept charging us for it for 7 years in the background (~£5000).

This Ombudsman did not read my complaint properly, used the WRONG companies terms and conditions, ignored nearly 2 MONTHS of service failures, appalling customer service and dismissed clear evidence!!! I was met with a cold, dismissive attitude and no warning that declining the decision would be treated as final. The whole process felt one-sided, unprofessional, and focused on protecting the business, not the consumer. I was left feeling irrelevant and abandoned. A total waste of time. If you're expecting ‘justice’ and to be heard I would suggest you look ELSEWHERE. They are NOT impartial at all. They don't look at evidence properly.!! They don't even understand the law which I can prove - the 14 day cooling off period does NOT relate when you're already into a contract months later, they basically copied and pasted the providers comments more or less and then to add to the insult use the WRONG companies terms and conditions!! How is that ‘fair’? How is that ‘impartial’ when you can’t even get the RIGHT company in the complaint? Talk about no attention to detail whatsoever…totally unacceptable, they should be shut down - a disgrace. And the adjudicator’s phone manner was appalling if I knew I was going to be talked down to and patronised I would’ve never rang them back… oh and forget about making a complaint. They’re not interested and just twist it on you so no actual protection or fairness for the consumer at all…totally shocked and blindsided by this treatment I certainly did not expect this….

Laura advised me and was supportive in getting justice from EE. They left a vunerable elderly person without any phone for 6 weeks and overcharged him for almost 2 years. I was so relieved to have the help from the Ombudsman. It is now resolved, pending the refund.
I would recommend anyone to contact the Ombudsman.

I used the Communications Ombudsman following a dispute with a telecommunications provider regarding the application of a referral promotion.

The staff were generally polite and responsive, and my case was accepted for investigation. I submitted extensive evidence, responded to the provider's submissions, and fully engaged with the process over a number of weeks.

My dissatisfaction is not primarily with the outcome itself, but with the way the process ultimately concluded. After the investigation had been completed, I was informed that the central issue in dispute fell outside the Ombudsman's remit because it related to a promotional offer and was considered a commercial decision of the provider.

This was frustrating because the case had already been accepted and investigated. Had the jurisdictional limitation been made clear at the outset, it would have saved a considerable amount of time and effort for everyone involved.

I also found it difficult to obtain a clear explanation of the specific regulatory basis for the decision. The final report contained at least one factual inaccuracy, and I was repeatedly told that the outcome could not change while simultaneously being offered an appeal process, which left me uncertain as to the practical purpose of that appeal.

To be fair, the case handler did answer follow-up questions and remained professional throughout. However, the overall experience left me feeling that consumers need much clearer guidance about what the Communications Ombudsman can and cannot investigate before a case is formally accepted.

In summary, the process was courteous and structured, but it did not provide a substantive resolution to the underlying dispute.

A decision was made based on factually incorrect information. Common sense would tell anyone this should be allowed to be appealed under these circumstances. Communications Ombudsman state it is for me to refer to Ofcom. Ofcom states not in these circumstances because the service provider has done it's bit now they should escalate to Ofcom with their reports so that Ofcom can investigate further. Initially you can self refer regarding wifi / broadband and Ofcom then refer you to your service provider to investigate first. Feels like preferential treatment given the final decision wasn't based on accuracy, fact or the correct process. Neither fair, just or impartial. Leaving consumers to suffer and keep paying for their suffering.if you want to challenge the decision you have to take it to court. Once I have Ofcom's stance in writing that is what I shall do.

A complete waste of time. It doesn't seem to me that they even looked at all my evidence.

Was initially impressed with my experience of the Ombudsman. They were quick, attentive and kept me informed at each stage. My experience soured, however, when they allowed an appeal to be heard which was in CLEAR breach of their own self-stated regulations and procedures, ie. neither new information nor a factual error in the evidence provided. I’m very disappointed in this - a decision arrived at by a flawed process cannot be allowed to stand yet that it is precisely what the Ombudsman permitted. They refused to set aside the resulting decision and I was denied the right to appeal against this. Poor experience and questionable process all round. Beware!

I used the Communications Ombudsman for the first time and was impressed with the interest, consideration and care they took into investigating my dispute. The outcome was positive for me and the investigator from the Ombudsman service made time to call me to discuss the case outcome, whilst advising me of next steps and options. I wouldn’t hesitate to use them again, especially as it was all (from beginning to end), dealt with in a timely manner.