Dispute Resolution Ombudsman Opiniones 

THIS is an appalling so called "service" which does not even begin to play fair by complainants. The complaint I have made has been mishandled; the person answering the phone is entirely unhelpful; they say they cannot put me through to anyone else. They have dilly dallied for weeks if not months and now tell me that I am running out of time. This is clearly a ruse, set up to defuse complaints about companies/organisations who pay this for Ombudsman. They claim to be "government approved" but I wonder who in any proper government would approve such an outfit?

You expect impartial investigation or basic adherence to telecom regulations from the Communications Ombudsman, you should look elsewhere. This service operates as an extension of the corporate sluggish machine, designed to wear consumers down through sheer administrative attrition.
In my dispute regarding, ________________, both the initial handler, Julie O'Sullivan, and the reviewer, Lewiss Bratt, completely ignored documented digital evidence and UK law just to protect the supplier.
1. Ignoring Ofcom PAC Regulations: I provided hard digital evidence of closing my account via the app, as well as porting my number to a new provider. Under UK Ofcom regulations, using a PAC code automatically terminates your old contract. Instead of upholding this basic telecom law, Lewiss Bratt backed _____________'s absurd claim that they couldn't close the account because I didn't pass a "verbal ID check" weeks later. You cannot fail an ID check for a contract that Ofcom regulations have already legally terminated.
2. Dismissing Data Security Risks: UW's broken systems attempted to coerce me into verbally disclosing private data in a public environment—a blatant security risk. The Ombudsman entirely brushed this off as mere "advisor behaviour" and an "internal matter," completely washing their hands of the unsafe practice.
3. The Ultimate Disrespect: To cap it all off, in their final assessment, they condescendingly wrote that I merely “say” I was a customer for 27 years, openly doubting an easily verifiable billing history. Frankly, given his complete inability to grasp basic telecom regulations or the reality of the situation.
They offer insultingly low "goodwill" gestures to sweep glaring systemic failures, endless customer service loops, and phantom debts under the rug. They don't investigate; they just copy-paste corporate excuses. A completely broken, toothless system.
Bratt and O’Sullivan represent the worst of the nanny-state: a patronising, 'auto-answer' regime where 27 years of corporate failure is met with the ultimate insult—a pathetic (£_ ) gesture and a shrug of administrative indifference.

My case ( Q177017) has now been ongoing for over a year with no resolution, and the level of communication has been extremely poor.

During this time, I have contacted the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman on approximately 14 separate occasions. Of these:

Only 6 were responded to without follow-up

5 required me to chase for a response

On 3 ocasions I received no response at all

Even when responses were provided, they typically took 7 to 21 days, with some taking considerably longer.

What is particularly concerning is that I have since discovered that updates provided to me — stating that the company under dispute was not engaging — were incorrect. In fact, the company was communicating, but due to technical/system failures, the DRO was not receiving the correspondence.

This raises serious concerns about both accuracy of information and case handling processes.

At this point, I have very little visibility on what is actually happening with my case. There appears to be no clear progress, no proactive communication, and no sense of accountability.

Meanwhile, I have been living in very difficult conditions at home, with the issue unresolved and ongoing.

Overall, I am struggling to understand what value is being delivered by this service, given the lack of communication, delays, and apparent procedural failures.

Just a fake ombudsman service, so that companies they claim they use independent dispute resolution. Completely useless. They don't actually invesitgate complaints, don't ask for evidence or clarification. Don't bother.

Bought a corner sofa from SCS. I provided a copy of the order form that clearly stated that the configuration was wrong. The outcome: The evidence provided outlines that you were provided with the correct sofa.

Quite clearly the evidence outlines that I was provided with the wrong sofa.

4 grand out of pocket for a sofa that doesn't fit in the room properly.

DRO, it would appear are pointless, toothless and useless.

This ombudsman is the most ignorant and Incompetent I have come across. They refuse to answer your questions, refuse to respond, refuse to call you, basically they refuse to communicate. They refuse to give you the information so you can complain about the service and refuse Sars. This disgusting and foul organization is supposed to be an alternative to court but they refuse to do an independent inspection and everything falls on you to prove. They knew I hadn't submitted all my evidence but were taking the companies side. I think they are bias. When you are supposed to come to a fair conclusion, you shouldn't start off siding with the company knowing I still had information to submit. I hadn't submitted it because I was having problems getting them to answer anything. I didn't want to waste my time. I finally managed to get the ignorant woman dealing with my case to state that she will not answer my MP nor my questions and she then said she was closing the case until I submitted the remaining information. I've decided to go to court. If I'm on my own, I'm better off dealing with the courts because they will communicate. And what kind of idiot will actually go back to this complaint handler when she has displayed bias and pure ignorance. This ignorant organization wouldn't even answer my MPs questions when he tried helping me. This organization shouldn't exist. They are a pure waste of time. Thanks for nothing but wasting my time. I hope you all lose your jobs as you are beyond useless and incompetent. And I hope my MP manages to cut your funding. You don't deserve a penny.

In response. Thanks for NOT reading the review. Just proved myself correct in front of every trust pilot viewer. You are beyond foul and a waste of space. You should all be fired. Guess to get a job at this place you need to be extra ignorant and incompetent

It's quite clear these corrupt idiots are funded by those we are fighting, I've asked twice under the freedom of information act for how much they have received in donations from Lowell's, they say I'm abusive and will no longer deal with me! Corrupt organisation that are a waste of taxpayers money!

Absolute waste of time. No wonder they have such a high one star rating. Something needs to be done and their Ombudsman status removed.

Honestly they are literally the best, a couple of months ago my application for a council housing was rejected and i appealed right away and it's was rejected again!i came across them and i decided to make a complaint to my surprise the application have been approved,i can't really thank them enough im super grateful.

An absolute waste of time took 6 months they do not look at the evidence properly and do not investigate the issues in my case they simply took the companies word against mine
I had issue with my windows and have proof from another company I have manufacturing issue. Still they said it’s only minor.
My window welds have not been welded correctly
My windows leak and let draught in
Is this minor.
What a joke of a organisation.
I would never use this service again wasted so much of my time
Really annoyed

This is neither a complaint, nor praise. It's information for users of this service.

It's quite simply this: this is a private company, not in any way a department of the government. The service this company provides is itself not regulated by the government. Like all companies it is regulated by company law.

My personal experience with the Ombudsman has been very good. Donna Thomas in particular was helpful in managing my complaint with DHL Parcel and without her intervention, DHL would not have paid out the insurance. They had shown total disinterest in my the non delivery of my parcel until they heard from Ms Thomas. So a big thank you to the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman.

Excellent Service!
They handled my issue in very profession and timely manner. I had almost given up my hope to get my refund back from a X company. But thanks to Ombudsman, I managed to get my money back. Only thing I did was escalate my matter to them with necessary backups and rest everything was handled by them. my special thanks to Donna Thomas who is so helpful and professional.

One has to question the skill set of these people. It is always possible that I was unlucky and got saddled with the one incompetent but I strongly suspect that they are all as bad as each other.

My complaint was with Anglian Water. In a nutshell AW said I had a leak ON MY PROPERTY and unless I repaired it they would take legal action against me. Therefore I spent a lot of money arranging for a specialist Leak Detection Company to visit to locate and mend the leak. The expert duly arrived and carried out his various checks and tests and concluded that there was no leak ON MY PROPERTY. It was surmised that if there was a leak at all it was most likely at the water meter situated outside my property. I duly reported this to AW. They re-visited and found that the 'mystery' leak had somehow mended itself. I said that was great but since I had forked out hundreds of pounds on this I hoped they would see fit to recompense that. I got a flat refusal and so ultimately the matter ended up, via the Consumer Council for Water, with the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman.

After a protracted period of time the learned (I use the term advisedly) Adjudicator delivered herself of her decision. She found in favour of Anglian Water (well, I guess someone has to like them !). The basis of her reasoned (I also use that term advisedly) judgment appeared to be that I had failed to establish that there had not been a leak initially. My case had never been that no leak existed. My case, very clearly, was that no leak had existed ON MY PROPERTY. Not exactly a subtle nuance but patently too subtle for this particular Adjudicator.

So its off to Court which is probably where I should have gone in the first place rather than waste much time, energy and patience on following a system said to exist to benefit consumers but which in fact does anything but.

An absolute waste of time. This organisation do not hold any authority over companies who allegedly sign up to it. They do not look at the evidence and do not investigate into issues with large organisations - in my case they simply took the companies word for it against my very clear evidence proving the opposite.

Staff are robotic and won't deviate from a script that they state is law, and have zero ability to empathise or use common sense. A very large organisation has cost my small business thousands and they can simply get away with it - the ombudsman is as much to blame for this. I would skip this step and go straight to small claims - this organisation will only try to tell you that you have no case, when in fact you probably do. Small claims will also take the Ombudsman's decision as evidence, which is likely to work against me and is based on nothing substantial.

The fact that they ruled against me is irrelevant (although frustrating)… it’s the basis that they did, that is the issue. It’s not based on any evidence from the company in question, just their word. This was very evident from the person dealing with my issue - she had no evidence and couldn't comment when questioned.

had me waiting for nearly 2 years and wasted my time been left with a broken cooker T=-=-=a, saying anything she can not to help me, these must work with the scamming companies

I won’t bore you with the full ins & outs, spent over a £1,300 with Tapi Carpets & floors & paid £59.95 for new door bars plus other non declared costs at original visit, fitter used my old bars without telling me hence keeping new bars to himself.

Complaints to Tapi where I was spoken to by assistant manager like dirt resulted in him saying the discount they gave covered cost of said bars plus by using old bars fitting of carpets are very poor. Branch after numerous official complaints refunded bars as ‘goodwill’ no I paid for them but not supplied.

Anyway Ombudsman has just declined my complaint after looking into it & closed the case, now I have to get a company at my cost to rectify. Total disgrace but looking here I’m not alone. Don’t bother using this Ombudsman.

Wish I'd seen these reviews before requesting a flooring inspection and wasting 2 weeks for them to say they had no one to do the inspection. Useless.

I recently used the DRO to help resolve a stalemate regarding faulty carpet. Their 'resolution' was to endorse the business's offer for me to purchase new carpet from them! Apparently the DRO considered the offer fair and reasonable! I can hardly believe this ridiculous nonsensical conclusion. I complained, but, as many others have said, all responses are copy and paste templates. Useless!!
*Update - the response below from DRO states I am free to complain which I did and as I reported above, the responses appeared to be standard statements informing me their decision was final and no appeals were allowed. However, since then I took up the matter myself with the retailer and I'm pleased to say I received a full refund, which reinforces my opinion about the DRO *

The Ombudsman's office is a service provider that people rely on to resolve their issues and ensure a fair outcome. However, my recent experience with their furniture home improvement service has deeply disappointed me. I paid a £150 fee for sofa inspection and expected professionalism and support commensurate with that fee. Unfortunately, my experience shows that more than trust is needed to guarantee the support one expects. The inspector arrived at my residence without knowing why he was there or wearing a badge or company branding. This lack of preparation and knowledge was concerning. Even more frustrating is that the inspector claimed I didn't pay only the inspection fee of £75 despite paying £ 150 upfront. This discrepancy in communication should not have occurred and reflects poorly on the Ombudsman's office's oversight of its service providers. The subsequent report I received was generic and lacked the necessary details and explanations I had expected. My attempts to contact the Ombudsman's office to seek clarification and resolution regarding the report have been met with silence. Phone calls and emails have gone unanswered, leaving me in a state of frustration and uncertainty. By sharing my experience, I hope to make others aware of the issues I encountered when seeking assistance from the Ombudsman's office. Holding organizations accountable for their service quality is essential, and my experience highlights the need for improvement. If you are considering seeking help from the Ombudsman's office, proceed with caution and carefully assess the quality of service you receive.