Case Reports

McKay Flooring Limited

The consumer complained wooden flooring had not been installed correctly and asked for a refund. The trader argued that only 6 boards from the three rooms needed replacing and the gaps between the boards showing the unstained oak against the dark surface was not an installation defect. Read our full decision here.

ASOS plc

The consumer complained that the trader had not dispatched to her all the items that she had ordered online. The trader closed the consumers account and refused to indemnify her against the non delivered items. Read the full decision here.
In a second case a consumer in France complained goods ordered from the trader had not been delivered. The consumer complained that the trader had blocked account after making complaining about the non delivery.

Tesco plc

The consumer filled up her car with diesel. The engine began to misfire. When the vehicle was examined the fuel was found to be seriously contaminated. When the consumer brought a claim against the trader, the trader responded with evidence consisting of water content monitoring reports, independent fuel testing records, deliveries & sales reports and records of the annual cleaning of tanks. The consumer had not retained the fuel filter or a sample of the fuel which might have enable the consumer to challenge the evidence of the trader. The consumer decided to withdraw her claim against the trader. The moral of the story here is keep hold of your evidence.


The consumer booked a journey from London to Dunkirk in France. When she boarded she realised that the service printed on her ticket did not stop at Dunkirk. The consumer had to alight at Calais in France after dark and make her own way. The consumer tried to claim back from the trader the cost of the taxi fare. The trader failed to respond to the consumers complaints.

When we became involved we contacted Transdev in the UK, the parent company of Eurolines. We pointed out to their head of compliance for Europe, that Eurolines had failed to comply with EU transport directives, in particular

Regulation (EU) No 181/2011, in particular, regulation 7 which stipulates that;-
“….Within one month of receiving the complaint, the carrier shall give notice to the passenger that the complaint has been substantiated, rejected or is still being considered. The carrier must provide the final reply within three months from the receipt of the complaint.”

Our concerns about the way trader was handling complaints was flatly ignored by the trader and the consumer is without a proper redress. The trader is not concerned about non compliance with consumer legislation.

Caister Construction

A building construction dispute. Read our full decision here.


The consumer complained the trader was being lethargic in the way it was dealing with problems she was having with her 55 inch curved TV. After the consumer complained to us the trader replaced the TV with a brand new one.

John Lewis & Partners

The trader refused to recognise a problem with the instruction lettering on the buttons smearing off. After the consumer complained to us the trader agreed to look at the problem again. In a different complaint against the same trader, the second consumer complained that the trader would not repair a defective laptop computer. The trader refused to recognise a independent report showing the defect had not been caused by the consumer. In yet a third case, the consumer complained that the trader had failed to honour an agreement to provide him a £20 e-gift card in satisfaction of an earlier complaint.

British Airways

The consumer, a foreign national, had booked a flight to fly from London to a third country. The trader refused to allow the consumer to fly to the third country because the trader alleged consumer did not have correct visa for the UK. In another case, a consumer complained about lost luggage and in yet further unrelated complaint the consumer complained the trader would not compensate the consumer for a cancelled flight.

Palace Skateboards

The consumer complained that £95.00 'bumbag' did not last 3 months after she had purchased.

Opura Ltd

The consumer placed an order and I paid with his credit card. They issued an tracking number from Royal Post and its status is "Sender preparing item". The consumer complained that the trader did not then give the parcel to royal post to him.


The consumer complained that the trader cancelled a return section of a flight without notice and left him to book alternative return flight. The return flight was considerably more expensive and to a different airport. The consumer complained that the airline should have booked him an alternative flight or paid for his costs of £97 on receiving his complaint.

Morco Blinds Ltd

The consumers complained that they had paid £9,000.00 to the trader for an awning the trader had not installed correctly. Inspite of an expert report which confirmed the consumer's case, the trader refused to refund the consumer.

Burlington Renovations Limited Limited

A building construction dispute. Read our full decision here.

Epic Games ('Fortnite')

The consumer was banned from the online game 'Fortnite'. The trader alleged that the consumer had been cheating. Read our full decision here.

On the Go Tours

The trader entered the incorrect passenger name on an airline E ticket. The passenger confirmed the incorrect name as the correct name on the airline E ticket. We were asked to adjudicate on which party should pay the resulting cost of rectifying the error. Read the full decision here.

The consumer booked a hotel room in London only to find that the room was infested with mould. The trader denied liability saying it was an intermediary only - a technology company. Read the full decision here.


The consumer complained that there was a serious misrepresentation between the rental he had booked on line and the rental that had been supplied to him. The consumer complained to the trader who completely ignored the consumer. When we became involved we contacted the trader’s legal department who flatly ignored any attempt to resolve the consumer’s complaints. The telephone contact appears to be handled outside of the UK. Inspite of repeated attempts by us to contact the trader by telephone and through their legal department about the alleged ‘payment guarantee scheme’ the trader was simply not interested in customer issues or resolving any.
In a second case, the trader informed the consumer that the booking he had made was no longer available even though the booking had been made months earlier. As a consequence the consumer was unable to find alternative accommodation and the trader refused to assist.

Phoenix HSC Limited

The consumer complained that the trader had not refunded to her an examination fee that she had to cancel through ill health. The trader requested refused to reimburse the consumer. The trader would not engage in ADR.

Sykes Cottages

The consumer complained that the trader had taken a small deposit from her but when she tried to cancel her booking the trader requested payment of the balance of the deposit. The consumer was concerned that she was being threatened with unjustified legal action.


The trader initially refused to change pre booked tickets without proof of a change to the airline booking. The trader in this case referred the complaint to us through the EU ODR portal.

Three Valleys Leisure

The consumers had booked a rental home for a party on a ski holiday. The consumers complained that the holiday home provided was dirty and completely unsuitable. The trader refused to reimburse the consumers or offer any compensation. We advised the consumers to pursue a personal injury claim instead after the trader refused to agree to ADR.


A consumer complained that the trader had used a non reply email address when booking seats on Easyjet. As a consequence, the airline would not allow the consumer to make amendments to the flight unless the consumer used the (non reply) email address used by the trader when making the booking . In a second case, another consumer complained that trader would not refund tickets inspite of purchasing refundable flights.

Creative Entertainment Exchange CeX

The consumer complained that the trader refused to honour the warranty on the sale of a second hand telephone. The trader alleged the consumer had breached the terms of the warranty.


The consumer complained a mobile phone had not been delivered. When the consumer complained, the trader stated that the delivery company had confirmed receipt but by the time the investigation had been completed the delivery company had discarded records of delivery. In a second case, the consumer complained that the trader refused to repair or replace a computer that stopped working after only 3months. The trader's response was that the consumer should complain to the manufacturer.


A consumer complained that he had returned a device which had ignited whilst being charged. This was to enable Apple to investigate the cause of the problem. Apple refused to return the device and refund the consumer.


The consumer complained that she bought an item on the website of JPerformance but that she did not receive her order. She received the order confirmation by mail from but not her package. She tried several times to contact JPerformance by mail (no phone numbers given) but she still did not receive any responses.


The consumer complained a repair to an Ipad screen had not been completed to a satisfactory standard and was impairing use. The consumer had to make several calls to tariff numbers and follow up emails. The trader offered a full refund to the consumer after we had become involved.


The consumer ordered cream and a shampoo. The cream was missing and the shampoo spilled all over the package. The trader stated that the cream was sent and offered a replacement and a 50% refund of the shampoo. The consumer stated she did not want take another risk of things going bad. She asked for a full refund.