EE Limited · DRN-6117736

The complaint Ms R is unhappy with the way EE Limited has managed her payments and the direct debit for her device plan loan agreement. What happened Ms R took out a fixed sum loan agreement, know as a device plan, with EE to finance the cost of a mobile phone. The device plan was taken out alongside an airtime plan, and Ms R had separate payments for each of the plans. Ms R says several things have gone wrong with the payments on her device plan. The full details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I’ve summarised the key events below: • In March 2025 Ms R made a manual payment of £610 intending to clear her device plan, but the money was put on her airtime plan. Around the same time, the direct debit for the device plan was cancelled. • EE offered to transfer the balance from the airtime plan to the device plan but this didn’t happen. Ms R later asked EE to refund the remaining airtime plan credit of around £470 in May 2025. • Ms R made manual payments from April 2025 onwards, and missed the due date in several months. However she also made overpayments on occasion to cover the next month in advance. • When Ms R set up a new direct debit mandate in July 2025, she says EE didn’t tell her it was too late for the new direct debit to collect the payment due that month. EE recognized it hadn’t clearly explained this to Ms R and agreed to remove the late payment markers from June and July 2025. • Despite Ms R reinstating her direct debit, there was a further problem in August 2025. EE told Ms R it couldn’t see what the issue was and advised her to contact her bank. • In September 2025 Ms R was promised a callback from EE’s executive complaints team, which didn’t take place. • Ms R says she made several manual payments of around £135 to cover two monthly instalments at once – but EE continued to say she owed money and reported arrears on her credit file. EE responded to Ms R’s complaint in October 2025, acknowledging there had been confusion about the payments due on her device plan. EE credited Ms R’s account with £68.68 to cover one month of her repayments. It also credited her airtime plan with £20 to reflect the missed callback from the executive complaints team. Ms R said she wasn’t happy with this response, as she had been affected financially and mentally – she requested £2,000 compensation, a written apology and for EE to be fined for repeated failures.

-- 1 of 4 --

Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. She said EE had already rectified the error it made in July 2025 in a fair way. She explained EE had told our service the direct debit was cancelled because Ms R was making manual payments to the device plan. She said she was persuaded EE had explained this to Ms R several times since July 2025, and as she had continued to make manual payments, it was fair for EE to report any late payments after this point. Ms R didn’t accept the Investigator’s findings and said it was the first time she’d been told this was why the direct debit was cancelled. The case was passed to me to make a final decision. I informally wrote to the parties to set out my preliminary thoughts, saying: I’m aware EE has already taken some steps to resolve things for Ms R including: • Removing adverse information from her credit report for June and July 2025 • Crediting her account with £20 as a goodwill gesture and £68.68 for 1 month payment on the device plan in October 2025 • Providing a full breakdown of the payment history on the account. But I don’t think this goes far enough to put things right on the complaint – and I’ll explain why. I’ve taken a wholistic view of what happened, and the problems on Ms R’s account all started when she made a payment of £610 intending to clear her device plan. It’s unclear what went wrong and why the device plan direct debit kept failing, but EE has accepted Ms R wasn’t to blame for what happened (as per the calls from 9 July and 5 October 2025). EE has now said it told Ms R the direct debit was failing because she was making manual payments. But I’ve not seen evidence to persuade me it clearly explained this to Ms R. There are also times when the direct debit failed without a manual payment being made. Instead, I’m more persuaded from the available evidence that the fault with the direct debit was caused by problems on EE’s side – not something Ms R had done wrong. After listening to the call recordings, I’ve also found EE gave Ms R conflicting information about the direct debit, which isn’t reflected in the notes EE initially sent. I would expect EE to provide Ms R with clear and accurate information about her financial products when she asks for it, in line with its obligations under the Consumer Duty and other regulatory rules. I’m not persuaded EE did this, and I think this contributed to Ms R’s actions when paying the account. I say this because she expected the direct debit to be taken after being told it was active, and once she lost faith in EE, started to pay manually instead. I appreciate there were times when Ms R wasn’t cooperative and didn’t want to go ahead with a possible solution, but I’ve considered the issue was ongoing for several months and causing her a lot of frustration. Two of the calls EE provided also showed Ms R received poor customer service from agents and was given information about her account that was contradictory and inaccurate. For example, she was told she could no longer discuss her account or payments with EE and had to speak to the Financial Conduct Authority. Overall, I think Ms R was making efforts to repay her device plan in full from March 2025 and continued to try and pay her bills. Unfortunately, the situation escalated because of poor communication from EE about what was causing the problem. I therefore don’t think it’s fair for EE to report adverse information about the device plan on Ms R’s credit report from March 2025 onwards.

-- 2 of 4 --

I also intend to make an award to reflect the frustration, upset and inconvenience caused by EE over a period of around seven months – and I think £400 is a fair amount to reflect what happened. This is in addition to the credits EE has already paid Ms R. I allowed both EE and Ms R time to respond. EE agreed to remove the adverse information from Ms R’s credit report from March 2025 onwards, but it said it thought £400 compensation was excessive. It requested a formal final decision without giving further reasons. Ms R also responded, saying she thought this showed EE had conducted a poor investigation to start with, and should be charged for wasting our service’s time and resources. She added that she doesn’t think she received the credits EE says it paid her. As the parties didn’t agree, I’ve continued to issue a final decision on the complaint. 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’ve also considered the responses from EE and Ms R to my preliminary thoughts on the complaint. Having done so, I still think the complaint should be upheld – and I’ll explain why. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory (as some of it is here), I’ve reached my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the available evidence and the wider circumstances. I’ve explained to the parties why I think EE let Ms R down, and neither party disagrees with this. Instead, the remaining issue for me to decide is how much compensation EE should pay to reflect the impact this had on Ms R. EE says it thinks £400 is excessive but hasn’t told me why. I’ve come to this figure after considering the length of time EE provided Ms R with poor customer service, conflicting information and unfair information recorded on her credit report. I don’t think EE has reasonably considered this went on for several months, and the frustration it caused Ms R eventually led to her closing her device plan. So, I think £400 is a fair award, keeping in mind the examples of awards published by our service. Ms R told me she thinks EE should be charged for wasting our time, as she thinks their initial investigation was poor. Our service isn’t punitive, and my role isn’t to award a fine or punish a firm when it makes a mistake. Instead, my role is to consider how EE’s actions have affected Ms R, and I think that’s what I’ve done here. I’m sorry to hear Ms R has lost faith in EE, and I understand she has since cleared the balance of the device plan. Ms R also said she didn’t receive the credits EE told me it had applied to her account. I want to assure her I’ve seen the account notes showing the credit of around £88 was applied to her account in early October 2025, but I’ve not seen evidence of the credit on her account statements. For the avoidance of doubt, I think EE must ensure it has completed the steps it says it offered Ms R to resolve her complaint. As I’m directing EE to remove adverse credit information from an earlier date, this will override EE’s offer to remove the markers from June and July 2025. But I think EE must give Ms R evidence to show it made the total credit of £88.68 to her account in October 2025 or later.

-- 3 of 4 --

If it finds the credit wasn’t completed correctly, I think it’s fair for EE to ensure it completes these steps in addition to the award I’ve made for the complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. EE Limited must do the following to put things right: • Remove any adverse information about the device plan from Ms R’s credit report, from March 2025 onwards. • Pay Ms R £400 to reflect the impact its actions had on her. EE Limited must also provide Ms R with evidence showing it made the total credit of £88.68 in October 2025 or later: • If it didn’t make the credit, EE Limited must credit Ms R’s account with a total of £88.68, as previously agreed. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms R to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Hannah Dunkley Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --