Communications Ombudsman Reviews 

Having read the negative reports by others I concur that the Ombudsman holds a bias towards BT, they disregard written/verbal recordings (provided by subject access requests by BT)and transcripts submitted by the consumer in favour of accepting "no evidence" BT statements. The skip read Consumer evidenced, state this is not a legal process and take little notice when challenged. They sign off and set deadlines in favour of BT and decline to ack factual evidence that supports the Consumer. There processes of access to provide date on their database is unwieldy and outdated that does not easily identify what is contained within whatever message and rellies on regular access to update the Consumer - overall poor and biases. No route to challenge as they appear always right!

Very odd process. They have such little power to actually get the company to do anything.

Do not trust the Ombudsman. Bunch of jokers. They always find in favour of big companies. We took BT to the O and BT have powerful lawyers and we didn’t stand a chance. Biggest bunch of con merchants ever. We are pensioners aged 77 and 75.

Unbelievably incompetent. They have also breached multiple laws, including The Companies Act, GDPR, DUAA and Equalities Act.

PS The reply is just another typically worthless copied & pasted stock response, that typically makes a number of false assumptions (guesswork). There is no comment whatsoever on the legislation mentioned and this further reinforces the assessment of incompetence.

Communications were OK, but it seemed to me that the Ombudsman accepted statements from the Provider without supporting evidence. It also seems that the Ombudsman does not have the power or technical skill to investigate a Provider's internal computer systems, or their financial management hierarchy.

A recent submission has met with a polite, efficient and understanding approach. Very easy to deal with. The outcome may take a while and it may or may not be that which I believe is correct but so far I believe the Ombudsman service will provide some closure to a truly dreadful 6 month experience with a long established telecoms/broadband provider.

Completely Incompetent and Fails to Recognize Corporate FraudThe Financial Ombudsman Service is utterly unfit for purpose. They have completely failed to understand the criminal nature of BT’s actions in my case.I officially cancelled my contract with BT. The service was never used. Despite this, BT fabricated a debt for money that is absolutely not owed. They are now weaponising a credit reference agency to aggressively extort these non-existent funds from me, severely damaging my credit rating.Instead of investigating this blatant corporate bullying and fraudulent behavior, the Ombudsman closed their eyes to the facts. They blindly accepted BT's falsified narrative, showing zero understanding of contract law or predatory billing practices. They are protecting a corrupt telecom giant instead of defending the consumer.If you expect the Ombudsman to actually read your evidence or protect you from illegal debt collection practices, look elsewhere. They are a rubber-stamp committee for big corporations. Absolute disgrace.

This organisation is supposed to be there to help you, my recent experience is they do nothing at all to help and make a bad situation worse. I gave them so much evidence to support my claim but was told its not something they get involved in even though a million Google searches all direct you to them. I asked for my case to be reviewed by a manager as I believe it is something they should be able to help but my request was just ignored. Thanks so much for your help, you should be ashamed of yourself

Absolutely appalling service. BT retraumatised me and bullied me and ended calls. I’m disabled and they said I had to pay BT over £600 this is bullying and one sidedness. Total waste of public money

Response to below ombudsman statement.

You will not to anything so don’t pretend to care. There is no appeal process and I declined agreement to the outcome. You are a law unto yourselves so do t continue to lie that you actually care

The process is totally biased. First, the customer submits evidence, then the business does. After the decision, the decision-maker secretly communicates with the business and gathers evidence that the consumer is not aware of and therefore cannot scrutinise or challenge. If a judge secretly communicated with one side during the course of a trial and gathered evidence without the knowledge of the other party, he or she would lose their job.
Roy Gaskill took their side instead. His explanation was in favour of Plusnet and had nothing to do with the facts. The main dispute concerns Plusnet's failure to provide me with the full terms and conditions, not merely a link to a website. He ignored the fact that the services were never provided, and his explanation had nothing to do with the telephone conversation.

His explanation also fails to explain why the Ombudsman relied solely on Plusnet's evidence instead of giving equal weight to the evidence submitted by both parties.
Since the Communications Ombudsman is a private company whose owners are businesses themselves, and each complaint is paid for by the business, there is not only procedural bias but also financial bias. It is independent in name, but not in nature.

I felt throughout my case that the case worker was more on the side of the mobile provider than on mine, even when I provided clear evidence that supported my complaint and raised concerns about the provider’s practices.
I supplied screenshots from the time of my upgrade, my order number and other relevant evidence. Despite this, the initial decision went in favour of the mobile provider. I appealed the decision, and after further investigation, the Ombudsman ultimately found in my favour and confirmed that the mobile provider had not kept to the contract I had signed up for.
While I was pleased that the appeal was successful, I was disappointed that it took an appeal and further investigation for the evidence to be properly recognised. I also felt that my concerns about the mobile provider’s actions were not taken seriously enough during the initial stage of the complaint.
Unfortunately, my experience did not improve after the decision. I believe the remedy calculation provided by the Ombudsman was incorrect. I contacted my mobile provider about this, but they told me that I would need to take the matter back to the Ombudsman because the remedy was based on the Ombudsman’s decision and there was nothing they could do themselves.
I then tried to contact the Ombudsman three times in one day and left voicemails, but I received no response. The case worker’s stated working hours were Monday to Thursday, and today is Friday, yet I have still not received a call back or any communication regarding my concerns.
The remedy offered to me was, in my opinion, completely inadequate considering the time, effort and frustration I had experienced. I also found communication with the case worker difficult, as the direct number provided often went to voicemail and it could take several attempts before receiving a response.
Overall, although I eventually won my appeal and the decision confirmed that my mobile provider had not fulfilled the contract, I was left feeling that the case worker had been more supportive of the provider’s position than mine, despite the evidence I had provided. The fact that I am now struggling to get a response regarding what I believe is an incorrect remedy calculation has made the whole experience even more frustrating.
Based on my personal experience, I hope I will not need to use the Ombudsman service again. I would advise anyone who does use the service to keep all evidence and records of communication, and to carefully check the final decision and any remedy calculations provided.

Absolutely useless. Had major problems with a telecoms company and ombudsman was about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Couldn't even get past the triage section when I rang. Staff said they weren't trained to advise me. Don't waste your time.

Just wouldn't bother, seems highly leaning towards the companies as opposed to the individual, don't take into account things that should protect the consumer. Basically a waste of time.

We had an issue with our internet service.
I tried to report it to the ombudsman, however it took one phone call, apparently they could not hear me but did not call me back and three emails all over about a month to get a response.
They are in communications.
Then all they wanted to do was get rid off it.
I asked them to read the excerpt of what happened but no one did and they were trying to associate the fault with the wrong firm which was so disapointing.
I then told them they are doing nothing for our communities and are a cost on our society and never replied to them
They are not worth 1 star.

###########################
RESPONSE TO OMBUDSMAN 230726
###########################

How bad a response is that, they do not investigate what happened.
I have all the evidence of what happened
Do not waste your time with this ineffectual useless excuse for an ombudsman.

I brought a case against my former mobile provider with evidence most complainants could only dream of. The company referred me to a debt collection agency and put a marker on my credit file over a misunderstanding with a final bill they had never notified me about. Throughout the complaint they repeatedly claimed to have sent me letters and emails yet when asked to prove this, they never produced a single one. Their own internal correspondence, from a senior member of staff, admitted no evidence of these communications could be found.

So, enforcement action against a customer who was never notified, backed by claims of correspondence that demonstrably never existed. About as clear cut as a case gets.

The outcome? My financial claim was not upheld. The company's complaint handling was found to be substandard, and I was awarded £50 described as "goodwill." Think about that word. Goodwill is what you offer when you've done nothing wrong. When findings of fact go against a company, the remedy is supposed to be compensation, not a token gesture with a friendly label.

Here's what I learned about how this scheme really works:

1. It has no power to punish providers. A company can take debt action against you without notice, make claims it cannot evidence, damage your credit file and the total cost is £50 and an apology. When wrongdoing is cheaper than compliance, that isn't a remedy scheme, it's a licence.

2. The accountability only runs one way. If you decline the decision, YOU lose the remedy and face court at your own cost. The scheme loses nothing. The provider which funds the scheme loses nothing. Every incentive points in one direction, and it isn't towards the consumer.

3. Reading other reviews here, my experience is clearly not an outlier. Complaints narrowed, findings softened, remedies that bear no relation to the conduct proven.

Use the scheme if you must, it's free and the credit file correction was worth having. But go in with your eyes open: this is not an advocate for consumers, and don't expect a remedy that reflects what actually happened to you. I have lodged a formal complaint about the scheme itself and copied it to Ofcom, which approves these ADR schemes. I'd encourage anyone with a similar experience to do the same that's the only feedback loop these organisations can't ignore.

I raised a complaint about BT. The case handler called me and was hostile and combative because I had deleted a prior case. But that was on the advice of another case handler, and so I was left feeling somewhat hectored. She subsequently ruled there was no case against BT but disregarded recorded evidence which seemed to suggest the complete opposite. So I appealed. And the appeal was unsuccessful, but for entirely different reasons that the first investigator didn't mention at all. And so the first ruling was erroneous in my view, and the second shifted the goal posts. And now there is no further avenue to appeal the second ruling which I believe is also erroneous. And that's how they wrap things up folks. The first case handler said she knew a lot of people at BT. An un guarded casual comments which might explain the outcome. If you're expecting a hearing from people who are impartial and who consider all of the evidence, then I'm afraid this is no longer the forum for that.

The investigation failed to address the central issue
I would not waste your time taking a complaint to the Ombudsman, and would suggest seeking an alternative pathway. BT must Wine and Dine them

Communications Ombudsman should be here to help but they don't care! Kynex defrauds customers by having fake positive reviews online (clik on to the people who write positive reviews and you will see that some of them only review Kynex each year; others review it many times over all positive). These positive reviews help Kynex get people to sign their contracts on the phone for 3 years. Then Kynex does not pay the monthly bonuses to help offset the really high mobile charges they sign you up for with providers such as O2. O2 knows about this I personally provided O2 with evidence of no payments and all the emails saying they will pay but do not.... O2 is regulated by Ofcom and the Communications Ombudsman and has the responsibility to not work with criminal organisations- YET - O2 could care less litteraly, I have emails from O2 saying its not their problem. The Communications Ombudsman could force O2 to stop working with Kynex but they don't care either... so what is the point of the Communications Ombudsman

The handlers achieved results That I had been trying to get for
6 weeks providing the same
Information but was ignored. As soon as Ombudsman became involved attitude changed.

Ombudsman's initial decision ignored facts, and the appeal appears to have been handled by the same person that made the original decision and has come down in BT's favour . . . by ignoring facts again. And now the "Decline to accept Ombudsman Decision" on the case web-page isn't working meaning that they will not be writing to BT before the next billing cycle commences, possibly leaving me liable to another advance rental payment. The Communication Ombudsman Service has been captured by its main client . . BT . . and is handing out "Rubber- stamped" decisions for BT. The whole legal ADR process is being brought into disrepute and disgrace by this corrupt relationship. The "Service" I have been provided with is nothing like properly run ADR. They need a public review by the Lord Chancellor and closing down and sacking the whole lot. And all I wanted to do is terminate my account with BT because they engineered and/or tolerated a situation where my broadband and telephone service and My BT account was totally corrupted and rendered unusuable earlier in 2026. BT Executive Complaints railroaded my complaint to the BT CEO, without due consideration, to the Ombudsman because, I believe, its cheaper for them to do so. The cause of this sitaution, I believe, is that BT wanted to avoid possible "High" civil engineering costs associated with uprating my service to FTTP - so they sabotaged my existing FTTC service after declaring a "Stop-sell" on FTTC on my exchange . . in the hope that I would leave . . .giving rise to my initial complaint. And, this occurred, just over a year after BT compelled me to switch to their Digital Voice Service in March 2025 ( . . . .Forcing me to abandon my analogue telephone enabled BT to side-step the legislation regarding the legal Universal Service Obligation that applies to analogue phones i.e. all part of of their devilish plan). BT and the Communication Ombudsman are not to be trusted. BT's only aim now appears to be funnelling revenue to shareholders, no matter what the effect on the customer. And the Ombudsman aim seems to be to facilitate BT actions, however immoral or illegal. Contrary to the message in their current advertising campaign, the only thing BT are "Brilliant" at is aggravating and ripping-of long-standing customers with a view to customer shedding and stonewalling and corrupting the complaints system. BT ought to be broken-up, they have morphed into an evil neo-liberal "Stand-and_deliver" monopoly. Ditto the Ombudsman service which is funded completely by the industry i.e. you are paying for this disgraceful Ombudsman Service in your telecomms bills.
And all this was done against a background of them "Losing" 200,000 existing customers in 2025 and expecting to lose the same number in 2026 . . according to the statement of the BT CEO . . any fluffing wonder the way I have been treated.

This enduring and widespread issue is attributable to successive governments who allowed broadband to be introduced on patchwork basis allowing internet Service Providers, such as BT, to "Cherry-pick" where and when they introduced the service. This has now resulted in this absolute farago excuse for a service, and has resulted in some areas of the country being heavily over-provisioned with broadband and other areas totally ignored. Just imagine if the conversion to North Sea Gas had been handled the same way in the late 1960s and early 1970s . . . we'd all be sitting around warming our dinners over camp fires. The blame for this lies squarely with the GB Government.

If the system allowed I would give them minus stars for the way I, a customer of 41 years, have been treated . absolutely despicable and corrupt, both the Ombudsman and BT.