Communications Ombudsman Opiniones 911

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.

Excellent communication throughout when dealing with our complaint.

My complaint against Three was only solved after contacting the Ombudsman on-line. For 4 months prior to that, I could not get an explanation for an alleged debt to Three.
The Ombudsman case handler was very helpful and explained things well. You have to be very clear and precise with your evidence and have patience if a delay occurs.

After accepting my case and acting as if they were going to help me fight my case with three over two missing devices they at the last hurdle turnt round and put the blame on dpd the delivery company and said I would need to go at them nit three yet has told three they need to replace the sim cards associated with the accounts but without the devices what good are the sim plans to my children. Don't waste your time with them even if you know where you stand legally then will try and convince you otherwise now I am preparing that start small claims court proceedings against Three.

I found the initial entering of information on the website to be somewhat repetitive but otherwise it was easy and straightforward. The gentleman I spoke with on the phone was pleasant and polite and he explained the process very clearly. The company involved offered a resolution and I accepted it. The whole process took less than 3 weeks.

Like most ombudsmen nowadays, this is another useless, ineffective one.
I spent hours collating the proof that my elderly sister had been overcharged for two and half years by at least £1500 with BT, who had been charging her over £80 per month for snail speed broadband and a few phone calls.
Many of her elderly friends are stuck in the same trap unable to get help. Which the ombudsman is aware of.
The ombudsman agreed it was wrong but didn't help.

I was disappointed with the way my complaint was handled and the outcome I received. I actual issue was never resolved.
When you call the Ombudsman, you can never get through, surely there must be away that I could have spoken to the team.

The Ombudsman's decision was disappointing but what has upset me most is that there are critical errors (an incorrect date and omission of material fact) in the decision document. When I highlighted these, I was advised that the document cannot be changed. It feels as if the Ombudsman has gone through a box-ticking exercise and BT will continue to force customers to move to Digital Voice in NotSpots (no mobile signal) and with no back-up - and, in my case, without telling them!

Resolved the issue with the provider prompt and efficiently

I was clear from the outset that I would accept the adjudication but the review report suggested that major factors were not taken into consideration in reaching the conclusion, despite this information being made available to the ombudsman.

I had ongoing network issues with Three, including very poor signal and unreliable calls. Despite multiple contacts and being given repeated fix dates, the problem was never resolved.

My complaint was mishandled and only properly addressed after I escalated it to the Communications Ombudsman. The Ombudsman upheld my complaint and required Three to release me from my contract without penalty, refund the affected charges, provide compensation, and issue a written apology.

It shouldn’t take Ombudsman involvement for a customer to be treated fairly. I would strongly advise others to keep records and escalate their complaint if it is being ignored.

A great and professional service. Timely, human and supportive.
A beacon of light in an otherwise failing UK regulatory sector.

My issues were with the Three network and the constant loss of usable signal for internet connection. Three's responses were basically useless at best and generally seemed to souuround around my purchasing other items from them; such a a Three mobile phone handset etc.
When he issues continued to occur and began losing me work contracts, I contacted Three and their only suggestion was that I consider moving to another network provider.
They continued to happily take th monthly fees for th eservice that was not being supplied and tried every trick in the book, so as to not take responsibility for these errors, "move the router to a North, North-Easterly facing location", "Try connecting at a different time of day", "Try holding the router above your head, whilst standing on one-leg in a rain-free location" that sort of thing.
Finally after a lengthy timescale, I was advised to take this matter to the Commuications Ombudsman, which I have recently complied with. To date and if for nothing else; this has proven to me how come I was not receiving calls and texts from Three, as the number they were usingwas the contact number for the sim-card that was inserted within the Broadband Router and which was not capable or receiving calls or text as it was a router.
I can only hope now that the interventions of the Communications Ombudsman, bring this matter to an acceptable conclusion.