Case Studies

Study

We are saving many of these for a big present to a good and just regulator who will without doubt do their duty.

This week we’re sharing 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗶𝗱-𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗸𝗲𝘀 – both against the 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿, both under the 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀, and 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗰𝗼𝗺 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁.

But their 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁.

🔹 𝗜𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗔, the Ombudsman ruled the 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲. It said the 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲 “𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲” – even though it was a 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲, and 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁.

🔹 𝗜𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗕, the 𝗢𝗺𝗯𝘂𝗱𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱: this same excuse from the same provider 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲. The contract was cancelled, all future charges waived, and over £10,000 in redress.

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴:
🕒 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗕 was decided before 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗔. Yet Case A was still rejected months later – using the same facts. Go figure…

🎯 In the end? Both cases were fully written off after further negotiation.

But 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗺𝗯𝘂𝗱𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻 at first instance. There are many many more and they are all being filed away for a day when a bright light shines down on the industry.

𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿- 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:
Why should the outcome depend on which case handler reads the file? What silly waste of time. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲.

📌 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀.

𝗪𝗲’𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 using the same clause to push through mid-contract price rises – and 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀.

This lack of consistency leaves businesses 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻, 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁, even when the rules are on their side.