Communications Ombudsman Bewertungen 

The Communications Ombudsman process is not fit for purpose. It is structurally incapable of addressing verbal mis‑selling, dismisses consumer testimony using an incorrect definition of “hearsay,” and accepts provider accounts without scrutiny.I was explicitly told the Ombudsman is “not focused on protecting consumers,” which is an extraordinary admission for an organisation whose sole purpose is supposed to be consumer redress.I have escalated the matter to my MP due to the wider regulatory implications. Based on my experience, this service does not provide meaningful protection for consumers, particularly those who rely on verbal information at the point of sale.

In my view they side with the supplier, a total waste of time, hours and hours of work, proof given to them then they say its not enough, you give them more proof then they say, its not the right sort of proof, dont waste your time it only seems to benefit the supplier.

I found the Communications Ombudsman process disappointing and very limited.

My complaint concerned EE applying a 50GB roaming fair-use cap without giving customers a clear, usable way to monitor usage against that cap. The decision accepted that it was reasonable for a customer to want to monitor usage, but then appeared to reduce the issue to whether there is a specific regulation requiring EE to provide a real-time tracker.

That did not feel like a meaningful assessment of whether the provider acted fairly and reasonably. It felt like the process was focused on narrow regulatory minimums rather than consumer fairness.

I also tried to raise a service complaint about the clarity and reasoning of the decision, making clear that I was not asking for the case to be re-decided. This was treated as dissatisfaction with the outcome (despite specifically stating twice that it was not that) and refused.

Based on my experience, the service felt toothless, defensive and not genuinely consumer-focused.

Update: Communications Ombudsman have replied publicly inviting me to contact them, but I had already contacted them directly about the reasoning of the decision and was told this was not a complaint they could accept because it related to the outcome/process, despite me specifically stating it wasn’t. They have my case reference and are welcome to contact me directly if they genuinely wish to review the issue.

You have to appreciate that the CO operate as a limited company, part of the Trust Alliance Group. Reading the employee reviews online, will tell you a great deal about the company. Having read many frustrated customers reviews which emulate our own, we have to wonder who pays the CO to perform the assessment of complaints? It is also important to attribute some of the blame to OFCOM, for not defining performance standards, clearly stating how many days is acceptable, when referring to reinstatement. In cases of slamming, it is clear that there is an issue, with providers hiding behind Openreach who do not have a contract with consumers, or businesses. If for example BT were your provider and you were subject to slamming, you do not have the right to find out who took over your line without permission. This information should be readily available, so that you can raise a complaint of who made an unauthorised request to take over your line. This is something that OFCOM need to review, along with the fairness of BT Group Plc group company contracts. The changes that were implemented in 2023 to allow customers to migrate to a new supplier, have clearly opened up a grey area, or in some cases a very big 'black hole'. Any company could be subject to slamming and left without any services for a number of weeks, which is not acceptable for any company in this digital world. From my recent experience, i have seen factual mistakes in the CO's assessment of our business claim, but I am now aware that the CO, do not investigate, further than the information provided by the customer or the provider. This service from the CO needs to be reviewed by OFCOM and this is something everyone here should raise with their local MP. This process needs to be impartial and assessments should be made on the basis of both evidence and research!

extremely helpful to a 74 year old widowed pensioner

I found the process pretty straightforward, and the notifications I received were helpful. A small blip in uploading supporting evidence and the on-line form, but generally much better than expected. Also proved to be effective as 1p Mobile decided to offer a mutually acceptable resolution, having refused to do so and citing "deadlock" prior to my going to the ombudsman even though I told them I would. Previously 1p had reviewed my complaint and basically dismissed me. So, it worked.

Do not even waste your time and energy on this useless service. The amount of time and effort I spent in raising the dispute with my broadband provider vs the useless so called decision the ombudsman communicated was just a clear waste of time and effort. They basically just side with the service provider and give you endless meanderings of their so called decision.

Feel the effort and honesty were all a waste of time and effort as the ombudsmen were all on the companys side with their outcome as what i was advised i couldn't do was what the company had done and was where the problems arose from,wouldn't advise anyone to use the ombudsmen.

Don’t waste your time! Even when your complaint is upheld and the handler empathises, the system only allows a pittance which in no way compensates you for the stress and loss of business suffered over 6 months. We were not interested in monetary compensation, we wanted to be released from the contract with Hosted without termination fees but were awarded a written apology and £150 which was apparently as much as the handler was allowed to award. To date we have received neither! Companies will not try to improve their service when they can get away with this.

Extremely disappointed with the handling of my communications complaint against Three.

The Ombudsman accepted that my mobile number port took almost four weeks to complete, far beyond normal industry timescales, yet still concluded that £30 compensation was “fair and reasonable”.

The decision focused heavily on the fact I still had partial service on a temporary number, while overlooking the real issue — my longstanding number was not properly transferred for nearly a month. This caused disruption with calls, texts, and services linked to my mobile number.

I also found it frustrating that “technical issues” were accepted without Three providing any meaningful technical explanation or evidence showing why the port failure lasted so long.

The investigation felt one-sided and too accepting of the provider’s explanations rather than properly considering the customer impact.

Overall, the process took time and left me feeling that the inconvenience and stress caused were minimised rather than fairly assessed

My experience with the Communications Ombudsman raised serious concerns regarding procedural fairness, evidential consistency and the overall quality of the review process.

In my case, the original decision acknowledged significant complaint handling failures by BT, proposed removal of adverse credit markers and awarded compensation. Following appeal, the remedy was materially reduced despite no new primary evidence being disclosed.

What I found particularly concerning was the unequal evidential standard applied throughout the review. The Ombudsman accepted BT’s interpretation of disputed events despite no audio evidence ever being disclosed to me, while simultaneously relying on absence of evidence against the consumer in relation to earlier disputed contact.

The review process was also affected by repeated delays, missed deadlines and poor communication.

By the end of the process, I was left with the strong impression that incomplete corporate records and internal interpretations were afforded greater weight than the consumer’s documented chronology and evidence.

Consumers using an ADR scheme should reasonably expect procedural fairness, consistent evidential standards and genuinely impartial review. Unfortunately, my experience did not leave me with confidence in that process.

I would like to sincerely thank the Ombudsman Service, especially case handler Natalie Harari, for the outstanding support and professionalism shown throughout my case.

Natalie took the time to fully understand my situation regarding an incorrectly placed default on my credit file and handled everything with fairness, care, and efficiency. Communication was always clear and reassuring, and I felt listened to and supported throughout the entire process.

Thanks to her hard work and dedication, the default was successfully removed, which has made a huge positive difference for me. I truly appreciate the impartial approach and commitment to achieving a fair outcome.

I highly recommend the Financial Ombudsman Service to anyone needing help resolving a financial dispute.

This is the second time I've used them to complain about EE. On both occassions they have sided with EE despite EE providing no proof that they were right and I was wrong. In latest case the nonsense they came back with was "I haven't been able to prove they have nor have I proven they haven't", so they haven't provided proof that's all you needed to say. EE did not provide me with pre contract information with my contract, I asked for a DSAR to prove they haven't and there was no pre-contract information there and they were unable to provide that to ombudsman. Despite this they still sided with EE as they claimed they only needed to keep sales data for 6 months and as its been 12 months - tough. I only realised they didn't when it came to them ripping me off with the April pay rises, I thought i'd check that I agreed to the high amount but I then realised I never received it. The fact they still sided with EE is proof they are not impartial, they are funded by the networks so its in their interest to keep the cash cow money flowing in.

The ombudsman appears very biased towards the service provider, which I could see in communications between the two organisations where individuals were on first name terms and the ombudsman took whatever excuses the service provider gave and did not stand up to them for me as the complainant. Let's see what Martin Lewis has to say about their attitude

Spent ages filling in their form which would not accept dates for 2025, when my dispute began. Testosterone Mobile sent sn ambiguous offer with 4 options, and no clarity about whether they were alternatives or more than one could be given together. Despite my contacting COS twice asking them to clarify, I was informed I had accepted the offer! Another case sadly, of staff picking out something which indicates they can Clunky give up and pretend their work is done. I wish workers would READ properly. Perhaps it was an AI?

After debating my phone termination fee with Clear business for around 18 months I contacted the Ombudsman who accepted my complaint and a Jacqueline Robinson took up my case, she was very professional and up front in how to go forward and the case was finalised to a very happy conclusion within a matter of days and I would like to thank her for helping me with this matter

I wish I had come on here and read the reviews before I took the time to go through this complete process, for the conclusion to agree with the Network Service provider even though they haven’t been able to offer a complete service coverage for multiple months. This is just lip service for the consumer, when in fact the corporates have the rules written so they can nearly get away with anything. Really disappointed with EE and the way they handled it and obviously the outcome from this service

The were very efficient at dealing with any issues. They were in touch regularly keeping me upto date and the staff were really kind and helpful.
They helped me get a solution very quick

Truly poor service that is clearly not impartial, despite the responses claiming otherwise.

It has now been almost seven months since I took out my internet service, after being told it would take up to 10 days to install. Seven months later, nothing has been done.

Beverly was assigned to handle my case, and the experience was poor from the start. From our initial phone call, it was clear there was a lack of care. She also failed to acknowledge key elements from my complaint in the final response, despite me clearly bullet-pointing everything to make it straightforward. Overall, it felt like a complete waste of time and caused unnecessary stress.

Before responding with another generic message about being impartial, it would be better to acknowledge that your staff are poorly trained, you clearly have no real power to help, and you are about as corrupt as “Trump’s America”.

A complete waste of time. Poor service. Poor experience.

I am very disappointed with how my case was handled by Ombudman, particularly by Matthew.

My concern is not about the outcome, but about the way the investigation was conducted. It appears that Matthew agreed with the company’s position without properly reviewing my evidence. Even now, it is clear that my emails and supporting information were not carefully read or considered.One key issue is regarding my authority. The company claimed that I did not have authority, stating it was only granted in 2026. This is not true I already had authority from 2025. This important detail was not properly verified or acknowledged.
There have also been repeated mistakes in the handling of my case. On the first occasion, I clearly informed a member of staff that I would be away in a Muslim country with limited or no internet access, and that I would respond upon my return. Despite this, the company later claimed I had not complied with the 14- day requirement and closed the case. This was inaccurate and unfair.
Even basic details, such as my communication limitations while travelling, were not properly recorded or considered. These ongoing errors give the impression of a lack of care and attention.What is most concerning is the apparent bias in the process. An organisation like this should review evidence from both sides objectively, without preconceptions. However, in my case, it feels as though the evidence provided by the company was accepted without proper scrutiny, while my evidence was overlooked not just once, but twice in the same case.
This pattern of behaviour is extremely disappointing. It reflects a lack of thoroughness, fairness, and accountability. I would have expected a more balanced and professional approach