Hutchison 3G UK Limited · DRN-6248144

The complaint Mr M is unhappy Hutchison 3G UK Limited (“Three”) defaulted his device plan, as he says he wasn’t told about the missed payments. What happened Mr M upgraded his mobile phone with Three in September 2024. He took out a new device plan for the phone, at around £35 per month, alongside an airtime contract for data and services, at around £24 per month. The monthly payment for the device plan was missed in January 2025. Mr M says he updated his address with Three around this time, but it didn’t send the arrears and default notices to his new address. He therefore says he wasn’t aware of the debt until a debt collection agent contacted him. Mr M complained to Three saying it was unfair to default his account. Three confirmed the default and termination notices were sent to the wrong address as it hadn’t updated his device plan account correctly. But it said it sent Mr M texts and emails reminding him about the missed payments to the correct contact details. It acknowledged the impact of the error with his address and paid £150 to compensate Mr M. Three also brought the account back from the debt collection agent and backdated the credit file to April 2025, when the default notice was issued. Three told Mr M it would place the account on hold while he agreed a payment plan. Mr M remained unhappy and brought the complaint to our service. Our Investigator didn’t think Three needed to do anything else to resolve things. She said: • The original sales call recording wasn’t available, but Three’s notes suggested it had clearly explained the cost of the two contracts to Mr M. Mr M also received and signed separate contracts for the device plan and airtime contract. • The call recording from January 2025 was available, and she had found Mr M called Three to ask why he was being billed twice. Three explained on the call that he had a separate device plan payment, and Mr M had confirmed he understood this. • As Mr M had an opportunity to resolve the arrears on the account in January 2025, and ought to have received the payment reminders by email and text, the Investigator didn’t think it was unfair for Three to continue with the collections process on the account. • The Investigator agreed Three ought to have correctly amended Mr M’s address on the device plan in January 2025. But she thought Three had done enough to put things right with its offer to resolve things.

-- 1 of 3 --

Three accepted these findings, but Mr M didn’t. He sent evidence to show the impact the debt was having on his mental health and asked for a final decision from an Ombudsman. 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. Having done so, I agree with the outcome reached by the Investigator – and I’ll explain why. Mr M’s complaint is about payments due on his device plan agreement with Three, which is a regulated consumer credit agreement. This means our service can consider complaints relating to it. Mr M also took out an airtime contract at the same time as the device plan, and this isn’t a form of regulated credit. I’ve mentioned the airtime contract as it forms an important part of the background to the complaint, but I’ve noted the arrears Mr M disputes are only on the regulated device plan. The key part of Mr M’s complaint is that he says he wasn’t aware he had to make separate payments for the device plan. However, having looked at all the available evidence on the complaint, I don’t think I can fairly say Mr M wasn’t given clear information about the payments. Ideally, I’d want to be able to listen to the original sales call to confirm what Mr M was told, but the notes from the call suggest the separate device plan and airtime contract payments were set out for Mr M. Even if this wasn’t clear, I think the paperwork Mr M was asked to review and sign did set this out clearly, as well as the separate payment schedule Three sent Mr M for the device plan agreement. I’ve also listened to the call Mr M made to Three in January 2025 about this issue. Mr M called Three to find out why he had a text about a missed payment, saying he thought Three had tried to bill him twice by mistake. Three explained Mr M had entered into two contracts, and the payments for the device plan and airtime contract would be collected separately. It told Mr M why there were separate payments and Mr M confirmed he understood this. Mr M told Three the money wasn’t in his account for the device plan payment, so he would need to call to pay it in a few weeks. The call recording strongly supports that Three made it clear why it had tried to collect the payment for around £35 in addition to the £24 payment taken for Mr M’s airtime contract. It also shows me that Mr M was aware in January 2025 that he owed some money on his device plan and needed to make up the payment. So, I think he had a reasonable opportunity to try and resolve the arrears after just one missed payment. Three has accepted that the agent who spoke to Mr M in January 2025 didn’t correctly amend the address on the device plan. This meant the postal notices for the default and termination process were sent to Mr M’s old address. I’ve thought about how this affected Mr M and his account, but I don’t think it’s likely Mr M would have been able to resolve things if the notices were correctly posted. I say this because Three has shown it sent texts and emails to Mr M about the missed payments leading up to the default – and Mr M confirmed receiving one of these in the January 2025 call recording. Despite these electronic notices, Mr M hadn’t made attempts to pay the arrears – and I’ve not seen evidence to persuade me he would have been able to do so. In any event, Three has agreed to recover the account from the debt collection agents and backdate the credit report to April 2025, when the account defaulted. I think this puts him back in the position he would have been in when the account defaulted and allows him another chance to resolve the arrears.

-- 2 of 3 --

I’ve considered the impact this had on Mr M as he initially complained about the billing in May 2025, but didn’t get a response from Three, so complained again in October 2025. Three has paid Mr M £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused by its errors, and I think this amount is broadly in line with what I would have awarded Mr M too. Three says the account has been on hold while the complaint is ongoing, and it is willing to agree a payment plan with Mr M. If Mr M isn’t satisfied with the payment plan or support offered after this complaint, this might be something he needs to raise separately. Overall, I think the actions Three has already taken are enough to put things right fairly for Mr M. Finally, I’d like to thank Mr M for sharing details about his mental health with me. I think Mr M only shared this information with Three at the end of his complaint, according to the account notes provided by Three. However, I’d like to remind Three about its obligations to support customers who show signs of vulnerability and those who are in financial difficulties. I hope the parties can work together to find a suitable way forward for the account. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Hutchison 3G UK Limited has already paid £150 to Mr M and completed the rest of the steps it offered, so I don’t require it to do anything further. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Hannah Dunkley Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --