Dear Executive Complaints Team,
I am writing to respectfully request that EE voluntarily reviews my complaint in light of new evidence that was not available during my previous complaint or the Communications Ombudsman investigation.
I appreciate that the Communications Ombudsman issued its final decision on 5 June 2026, and I understand that the Ombudsman has confirmed the case cannot now be reopened due to the time that has elapsed.
However, I wish to emphasise that neither I nor the Ombudsman had access to my Subject Access Request (SAR) call recordings when that decision was made.
I only received my SAR recordings approximately two weeks ago and have only recently been able to listen to them after purchasing a laptop capable of accessing the files. As a result, the evidence I am referring to today was not considered during the Ombudsman investigation.
I am not asking EE to disregard the Ombudsman’s decision, nor am I asking you to reopen the Ombudsman’s case. I am simply asking whether EE is willing, as a matter of discretion, to review evidence that was not available during the original complaint process.
Having now listened to the recordings, I believe they provide important context that was missing from the previous investigation.
Timeline
18 August 2025
I contacted EE due to severe network issues following an early upgrade.
During this call I explained I wanted to leave EE.
I was advised that once I returned the handset, obtained a PAC code and used it within 30 days, I would no longer have an EE account and I would not receive any further bills.
At no stage during this conversation was I informed that using the PAC code would leave me liable for the remaining charges on my original contract.
21 August 2025
Another adviser explained that once the handset had been returned my plan would revert back to my previous contract and I should then use my PAC code.
Again, there was no explanation that I would remain liable for the remaining months of my previous contract.
27 August 2025
Because I wanted to make absolutely sure, I specifically asked the adviser:
“Can I use the PAC code before the phone gets back to you?”
The adviser replied:
“You don’t have to wait until it gets back to us. I wouldn’t do it until you’ve returned the phone, but once you’ve sent it back you’re able to use that PAC code.”
This conversation is particularly important because it demonstrates that I actively sought clarification before taking any action.
4 September 2025
I physically returned the handset to the EE retail store.
Based upon the advice I had received over several telephone conversations, I genuinely believed EE now had possession of the handset and I had complied with everything I had been instructed to do.
5 September 2025
I used my PAC code.
I genuinely believed I was following EE’s instructions correctly.
Subsequent Events
Following this, I began receiving bills which I did not understand.
I repeatedly contacted EE asking why these charges had arisen.
The recordings consistently show me saying I did not understand why I was being billed and that nobody had explained these consequences before I used my PAC code.
21 October 2025
One EE adviser stated that they believed the store had cancelled the line rather than processing the return correctly and advised they would raise an intervention with the store manager and regional manager.
28 October 2025
Another adviser acknowledged there had been confusion and referred to “missing information.”
I also reminded EE during this call that I am recorded on your systems as a vulnerable customer and that I require information to be explained clearly because I struggle when different advisers provide conflicting advice.
29 October 2025
This was the first occasion on which anyone clearly explained that the remaining balance related to my original contract.
By this point, all of the events giving rise to the dispute had already occurred.
Had somebody clearly explained this consequence before I used the PAC code, I would have understood the financial implications before making that decision.
14 November 2025
The recordings also demonstrate that I repeatedly asked how I could pay the remaining balance because I did not want the account progressing to debt recovery.
Rather than refusing to pay, I repeatedly requested a payment arrangement.
I was repeatedly informed that EE could not arrange one because the account had already been cancelled and that I would have to wait until debt recovery before instalments could be agreed.
Credit File Response
I also recently received a response from EE’s Credit File Correspondence Team.
That response states that the outstanding balance remained unpaid from September 2025 until June 2026.
I do not dispute when the balance was eventually settled.
However, I believe that statement lacks important context.
The call recordings demonstrate that I did not simply ignore the balance.
Instead, they show that:
• I repeatedly contacted EE because I did not understand why I had been billed.
• I repeatedly sought clarification.
• I repeatedly asked how I could pay.
• I repeatedly requested a payment arrangement.
• I repeatedly expressed concern regarding my credit file.
• I repeatedly explained that I was a vulnerable customer and required clear, consistent information.
The Credit File Correspondence Team also confirmed in writing that they do not investigate customer service interactions, advice given by advisers, call recordings or Subject Access Request material.
Therefore, I do not believe these recordings have ever been properly considered by anyone reviewing my complaint.
My Request
I fully appreciate that EE is under no obligation to revisit a complaint which has already been considered by the Communications Ombudsman.
However, given that the Ombudsman did not have access to these recordings and I only obtained them after the Ombudsman’s decision had been issued, I respectfully ask EE to voluntarily review this new evidence.
I would also appreciate answers to the following questions:
1 Before I used my PAC code on 5 September 2025, can EE identify the exact recording, letter or communication in which I was clearly informed that returning my handset and using the PAC code would leave me liable for the remaining charges on my original contract?
2 Why do the recorded telephone conversations not clearly repeat the warning contained within the store note that EE has relied upon?
3 Having now considered the recordings, does EE accept that I received inconsistent advice from different advisers regarding the PAC process and the consequences of returning my handset?
I am not seeking to reopen the Ombudsman’s decision.
I am simply asking EE to exercise its own discretion by reviewing evidence that neither I nor the Ombudsman had available during the original complaint.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony
Mod note: Removed personal details from post.
