Hutchison 3G UK Limited · DRN-6199682

The complaint Mr S complains about a mobile telephone handset he bought using a fixed sum loan agreement from Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three. What happened In November 2023, Mr S took out a fixed sum loan agreement with Three, to buy a brand new mobile telephone handset. The device had a cash price of around £1,100 and under the loan agreement, Mr S was due to make monthly payments of about £27 over a three year period. Over the following year, Mr S says he noticed some faults with the handset. He says the battery lost its charge much sooner than he expected and that the device began to overheat when used. So, Mr S complained to Three about the quality of the goods they had supplied to him. To support what he says, Mr S also arranged for a report from the manufacturer of the handset, which he says confirms the device was faulty at the point of sale. Mr S says that due to his employment, he couldn’t be without a handset. So, Mr S bought a replacement and stored the handset supplied by Three at his home. Although Three acknowledged Mr S’s complaint, they didn’t provide a final response. This meant that Mr S was able to ask us to look into his concerns. After we resolved Three’s concerns about our power to look into Mr S’s case, one of our investigators found that Three had fairly reviewed the quality of the device. He looked at their summary and didn’t think Three had breached the contract they have with Mr S. But, Three recognised where they had caused a delay in their review, so offered to pay Mr S £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The investigator found that this offer was fair in light of the circumstances. Mr S didn’t agree with the investigator’s findings and said he had tolerated the faults with the handset since he first got it. He said Three should have inspected the device when he first complained, and that the manufacturer has confirmed the device should have lasted longer than it did. The investigator noted Mr S’s comments, but didn’t change his conclusions. So, Mr S’s complaint has now been passed to me to make a final decision. 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. Mr S paid for the mobile telephone device using a fixed sum loan agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement, and our service is able to consider complaints relating to these sorts of contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is relevant to this complaint. The CRA implies terms

-- 1 of 3 --

into the contract that goods supplied will be of satisfactory quality. By satisfactory quality, the CRA says this is what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory given the price, description, and other relevant circumstances. The CRA also sets out what remedies are available to consumers if statutory rights under a goods or services contract are not met. In summary, the CRA says that goods must conform to the contract within the first six months. So, if the goods are found to be faulty within that period, it’s assumed that the fault was present when the goods were supplied, unless there’s compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Outside of those six months, it’s for Mr S to show that the goods were not of satisfactory quality. Mr S was provided with a brand new mobile telephone device, so I think it was reasonable for him to expect it to be free from faults for a considerable period of time. However, Mr S says he noticed a fault with the device when he first got it. So, on the face it, this would place the onus on Three to arrange an inspection of the device at the very least. But, I can see from Three’s records that they spoke to Mr S about a simple solution he could undertake himself. Indeed, Mr S has explained that following Three’s advice he didn’t contact them again regarding the fault for around another year. I’m also aware that Mr S says he tolerated the fault until such time as he bought a replacement, and stored the device from Three in his home. Overall, I don’t think the circumstances in the first two years after Mr S was supplied with the handset, means there was an onus on Three to accept the handset had an inherent fault. Against this background, I’ve thought carefully about the evidence of the fault that Mr S has provided. I can see from Mr S’s records that he has sent us some text copied into an email. Mr S says the text is taken from an email, from the manufacturer in March 2026. This was around two and a half years after Mr S was supplied with the handset by Three. The evidence shows where it’s agreed there are black spots on the handset’s screen, but the handset itself has no sign of damage. The email concludes by saying the manufacturer would have repaired the screen under warranty, if the handset was presented to them within the warranty period. I do not doubt that the email sent to us by Mr S is genuine, and I agree that it provides an appraisal of the handset in its current condition. However, the report doesn’t provide detail on when or how the fault was caused. Furthermore, the report doesn’t say if it’s a common problem with the make and model of Mr S’s handset. I must also weigh Mr S’s evidence against where Three say he didn’t take the device to one of their stores, as soon as he says he saw a fault. Having considered everything, I’m not persuaded the testimony and documents we have show that there was an inherent fault with Mr S’s handset. I accept Mr S’s point about the durability of the handset. But, I don’t think the evidence shows when or how the fault occurred. While I thank Mr S for all the information he has gathered and for providing his arguments clearly, I don’t think Three have breached the contract they have with him for the supply of the handset. So, I don’t require Three to take any further steps to offer a remedy under the CRA. That said, Mr S should still have the option to send the device to Three for their review and a possible quote for the repair. Within Mr S’s complaint, he has intimated that Three’s approach to taking responsibility for the quality of the device has inadvertently led him to enter a further airtime services

-- 2 of 3 --

agreement with them. He says he would not have done so, had he known the outcome of their review. While I accept that Three have given Mr S incorrect information about his points of referral to a dispute resolution scheme, I don’t think this has induced him into the further airtime agreement. I say this as Mr S was free to approach a different airtime provider, if he was unhappy with how Three had treated him. From my review, I’m aware that Three didn’t correctly follow up Mr S’s concerns and gave him some incorrect information about his consumer rights for the handset. I agree with Mr S, in that Three didn’t treat him fairly, when he was trying to explain his understanding of his options. Mr S says Three made him feel foolish for talking to them about the CRA, and I acknowledge the strength of Mr S’s frustrations here. I think this means Mr S has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the way Three has treated him. So, I think it’s fair for Three to make a payment to Mr S to in light of that. In all the circumstances, I think Three’s offer fairly reflects the trouble and worry caused to Mr S. So, I think it is fair and reasonable for Three to pay Mr S £100 for the distress and inconvenience he’s experienced. Putting things right For the reasons I’ve explained, Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three should: • Pay Mr S £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and require Hutchison 3G UK Limited trading as Three, to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Sam Wedderburn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --