EE Limited · DRN-6139729

The complaint Mr G has complained that EE Limited is holding him liable for a credit agreement that was taken to buy a new phone. What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so, I’ll only briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role of resolving disputes quickly with minimum formality. In October 2025, Mr G ordered a new phone from EE costing around £1,200. To help fund the purchase Mr G borrowed some money from EE using a new fixed sum loan agreement. EE appointed a courier, who I’ll refer to as D, to deliver the device to Mr G’s home address. Records show D attempted delivery on 25 and 26 October 2025 before successfully delivering the package on 29 October 2025. But on opening the outer packaging Mr G says he found the phone box was damaged and the phone was missing - all that was present was the SIM card, charger and invoice. So, Mr G contacted EE straight away to make them aware of the issue. EE responded to Mr G’s complaint by saying they were satisfied the phone had been inside its sealed box when it left their warehouse due to weight checks and the photographic evidence didn’t show any tampering to the outer packaging. Unhappy with EE’s response Mr G asked the Financial Ombudsman to consider the matter. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint, but Mr G didn’t accept their findings. In summary, Mr G said: • he’d reported the matter immediately to EE and had requested the device be blacklisted. • he believed the photographic evidence he’d supplied showed the internal box had been tampered with and this damage was consistent with a phone having been removed prior to delivery. • it didn’t appear the integrity of the delivery process had been looked at including any meaningful investigation into any possible links between the staff members at EE’s warehouse and the courier driver or whether the dispatch staff could reseal packages and reprint labels. • In the absence of any CCTV footage, it’s reasonable to infer that the handset may have been removed during the supply chain or delivery process, consistent with the principles of fairness and proportionality under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 75 (S75 CCA) and FCA CONC rules. So, the complaint came to me to decide.

-- 1 of 3 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Mr G and EE that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it, it’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. Mr G bought the device using a regulated fixed sum loan agreement, and our service is able to deal with complaints relating to these sorts of agreements. Mr G is alleging there was a breach of contract because EE didn’t supply the device he’d paid for, so it’s unfair for EE to hold him liable for the linked credit agreement. I’m never going to know what happened to the device as the evidence is incomplete. EE faced those same evidential challenges. Where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive, I must reach my decision on the balance of probabilities. Mr G has been consistent in his testimony, and I note Mr G reported the matter soon after delivery and asked for the device to be blacklisted. It’s possible the device could have been removed at the warehouse or by the courier. But EE has explained the packages wouldn’t have left the warehouse empty due to the weight checks it says it carries out. EE has said employees are checked on entry and exit and it highlighted there was no obvious signs of tampering to the outer packaging – with Mr G saying he didn’t notice any. EE is also unable to investigate D. D responded to EE to say they’d found no evidence to show the package had been tampered with prior to delivery. The evidence isn’t conclusive, but I’d like to have been more certain about what happened. It’s possible that someone at the warehouse took the phone and was able to bypass the security. It’s also possible the courier was able to take the device and repackage it in a different but similar looking bag with a reprinted label. The packaging shown by the photos was consistent with the packaging EE uses and EE said the weight of the package was as expected as well. So, I understand why EE didn’t think either of those scenarios were the most likely thing to have happened. I’ll never know for certain what did happen. If either the courier or someone at the warehouse has stolen the device these would comprise of very serious allegations. Unlike a court, I’m unable to summon witnesses for cross examination. And EE would have faced similar hurdles. So, it’s difficult to reach firm conclusions in the informal forum that I’m able to investigate this complaint. I think EE took account of all the available information before responding to Mr G’s complaint. Overall, I don’t think I’ve seen enough to safely conclude that EE reached an unfair outcome when determining that, on balance, it was more likely than not that the phone was inside the box when it was delivered to Mr G. So, I’m unable to say EE acted unfairly when not cancelling the linked credit agreement and requiring Mr G to pay the outstanding balance. To be clear, it’s not to say something definitely hasn’t gone wrong but, on balance, I don’t think EE received enough evidence to show the device wasn’t successfully delivered to Mr G. Mr G doesn’t have to accept this decision. He’s free to pursue the complaint by more formal means such as through the courts, where witnesses may be able to be called and

-- 2 of 3 --

cross examined. While I appreciate Mr G has strong feelings about what’s happened and it’s likely he’ll be disappointed with my decision, I’m not going to direct EE to take any further action in relation to this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Carl Bibby Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --