EE Limited · DRN-6236845

The complaint Mr W is unhappy with the service provided by EE Limited when he upgraded his mobile phone contract. What happened Mr W had a mobile phone contract with EE. In late 2025, he visited an EE store to upgrade his handset. He originally wanted to try and reduce his costs but ended up agreeing to a contract where the overall price was similar. He said that at the time of taking out the contract for the new handset, he asked whether his direct debit would remain the same, and said he was told it would. However, two days later, during a call with EE, he discovered that, while happy with the overall monthly cost of the contract, two direct debits had been set up - one for the handset and one for the airtime contract. He said this was not what he was advised in-store, and had he known he would be paying for the handset separately, he would not have to be asking these questions now. Unhappy, he complained. He wants EE to compensate him for their service failings. EE responded. They said the direct debit document that Mr W viewed and approved, set out that there would be two direct debits. They said Mr W was also shown a video that explained that the contract would be split into two - with a monthly payment for the airtime contract and a separate monthly payment for the handset. While EE didn’t provide testimony from the sales agent due to the time that had passed, they did provide evidence to show that the direct debit document, along with a video – both of which explained that two direct debits would leave his account monthly, one for the airtime contract and a separate one for the handset – was sent to Mr W’s phone. And they provided evidenced to show that Mr W had accessed these materials, so they were satisfied he had been made aware. They also said that the split payments were something their advisors went through at the point of sale. Mr W remained unhappy however and said that the business had an obligation to provide clear information at the point of sale, and that too much weight was being placed on documentation that was sent to him. So, unhappy with EE’s response, Mr W brought his complaint to this service. An investigator considered the matter but ultimately didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. He said, in summary, that while he couldn’t be certain exactly what was covered at the point of sale, overall, he thought there was sufficient evidence to show that Mr W had been notified about how the payments would be split. And even if it wasn’t clear at the point of sale, when Mr W called up just two days later, the breakdown of costs was made clear at that point. So ultimately, he didn’t think there had been any real detriment to Mr W. Mr W remained unhappy however. So, the case has been passed to me, an Ombudsman, to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, and while I accept this may be disappointing for Mr W, I’ve reached the same conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. When looking at a complaint of this type, I first need to think about what most likely happened at the point of sale. And if there were failings on the business’s part, then what impact did this have on the customer, and what might the customer have done differently if not for those failings. In this case, the sale of the new phone took place in an EE branch, so there are no call recordings to listen to. Mr W has provided his testimony of what happened, and EE have told us about what their process includes and what documentation was sent. EE have chosen not to provide testimony from the sales agent at the time due to the length of time that had passed since the sale, and their feeling that any testimony now given would likely be unreliable. Mr W said that at the time of the sale, he asked EE whether his direct debit would remain the same and was told that it would. Taking this comment at face value, I would interpret that question as a question about the amount being paid. But Mr W has made it clear that that was not the intention that sat behind the question, and it seems that rather, he was asking whether or not the direct debit would remain as one single payment or be split into two as it was - with one payment for the handset and one for the airtime contract. Mr W said he was told there would be no changes, and his previous bill was not split this way. So, he proceeded on this basis. To the contrary, EE have said that at the time of the sale, the breakdown in costs would have been explained to Mr W. They said they also sent to Mr W’s phone; the ‘flex play video’ - showing how the payments were broken down; the credit agreement for the handset - showing a monthly cost around half of the total monthly price; along with the direct debit agreement - which sets out in the first line of the document that “You’ve chosen to pay by Direct Debit. Since you’ve opted for Flex Pay, so you’ll see two Direct Debits - one for your plan and another for your device agreement”. So, EE were satisfied Mr W had been suitably informed. They also provided evidence to show Mr W accessed these materials on his mobile phone. So, from the evidence provided by EE, it seems Mr W was sent several items of correspondence that clearly set out how the costs would be broken down into two parts. Mr W has argued that EE have a requirement not just to send appropriate documentation, but to ensure that things are made clear to a customer at the point of sale. He says that system confirmations are not conclusive proof of understanding; and, that the audit trail relied upon, shows these documents were accessed for just a few seconds before being closed, suggesting that the sales advisor ran through the process quickly without explaining the material. He says that had things been made clearer, he would have paid off the handset in full, as he didn’t want additional unnecessary direct debits leaving his account. I agree with Mr W, that purely relying on documentation sent isn’t conclusive proof that EE followed the correct sales process. Equally, I need to take into account that Mr W’s testimony isn’t conclusive proof of any wrongdoing on EE’s part. But while I can’t be entirely clear on what took place at the point of sale, I’ve thought about things from Mr W’s perspective, and the impact that any possible failings by EE may have had on him. I appreciate if things were made clear to Mr W at the point of sale, that he might have thought about the fact that his direct debits would be recorded differently, given he was

-- 2 of 3 --

happy with the overall cost of the agreement. But I’ve not seen sufficient evidence to persuade me that Mr W would have chosen to act differently, or that two direct debits instead of one would have caused him significant distress, especially given the cost was the same either way. Mr W has argued that having two direct debits for his mobile bill, rather than one, was particularly distressing, and that had he known, he would have chosen to pay off the phone in full at the time taking out the contract. But his agreement allows him to settle his contract early at any time and pay off the finance for the handset. So, I think at the point Mr W spoke with EE just two days after taking out the agreement, and it became clear to him that the handset was being paid for separately, I think Mr W could have chosen to pay the agreement off at this stage if this issue was still causing him significant distress, given just a short amount of time had passed. I should also note that this option is still available to Mr W now, should he wish to just be paying EE the one payment for his airtime contract. So, while I appreciate Mr W’s point of view on this matter and agree with many of the points he has made, I’ve not seen sufficient evidence that Mr W has been put to sufficient distress to warrant compensation in the circumstances. And if he does remain unhappy with the second direct debit, as set out above, he still has the option now of paying off the handset in full, so that he doesn’t have that continued burden. But in the circumstances, I’ve not been able to evidence a failing on EE’s part, and even if there were some shortcomings in line with what Mr W has set out, I’m still not persuaded that they would warrant compensation in the circumstances. So, it’s for these reasons I won’t be upholding Mr W’s complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold Mr W’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Brad McIlquham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --