
Three Mobile customers urged to apply for compensation after network went down for 14 hours
THREE Mobile customers are being urged to file complaints and seek compensation following a 14-hour outage.
Tens of thousands of customers reported being unable to make or receive phone calls or send SMS text messages on Wednesday.
1
The outage began at 8am, with angry customers flooding social media with complaints.
Three, which recently merged with Vodafone, swiftly acknowledged the issue with a post on X (formerly Twitter).
It read: "We're aware of an issue affecting voice services and are working hard to fix it.
" Data services are working normally. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused."
Despite the early update, the mobile network didn't confirm the issue was resolved until 10pm last night.
Since then, many customers have asked if they'll get compensation.
A third customer said: "I hope we all get compensated from you."
So, can customers claim compensation?
Three Mobile network down with customers unable to make or receive calls
We reached out to Three, but the company declined to confirm if it will pay out.
Telecom regulator Ofcom has an automatic compensation scheme for broadband and landline customers when services are disrupted.
However, mobile customers aren't covered and don't receive the same protection for connection issues.
That said, you can still request compensation directly from your provider.
Simrat Sharma, Uswitch mobiles expert, said: "Three's reported outages this week will be incredibly frustrating for customers - and it's understandable that many will be thinking about compensation.
"Ofcom advises that compensation for mobile signal outages is 'dependent on the circumstances'.
"But in extreme cases where repairs take much longer, you may be entitled to an additional refund or account credit.
"If you've experienced huge disruption from the outage, don't hesitate to contact your provider to see if they can help."
Customers can use the 'Live Chat' feature on Three's website or dial 333 from their mobile to file a complaint and request compensation.
It's likely compensation would be considered on a case by case basis, for example if you use your phone for your business and you were unable to make calls or if you needed to use your phone urgently, then it might be worth logging a complaint.
There's no guarantee on whether compensation will be paid - but it might be worth asking.
An Ofcom spokesperson added: "Anyone who has been affected by this outage should get in touch with Three directly, and if they are dissatisfied then they can consider logging a formal complaint."
How to complain and WIN compensation
If your provider hasn't fixed the issue on time or you're unhappy with the delay, follow the formal complaints process.
Take screenshots of the outage on your phone and note how long your service was down.
Be clear about any extra costs you faced because of the outage, as you might be able to claim them back.
To complain, call Three on 333 or use their live chat.
Keep copies of receipts or bills to show any extra costs caused by the outage – these will help strengthen your case.
If your formal complaint doesn't resolve the issue, you can ask for a "deadlock letter" after eight weeks and take your dispute to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme.
ADR schemes are free and act as an independent mediator between you and your provider when complaints can't be settled directly.
There are two ADR schemes in the UK - the Communications Ombudsman and CISAS.
Providers must be part of one, and you can check which scheme covers your provider at ofcom.org.uk.
Three is a member of the Communications Ombudsman.
To file a complaint, you can fill out the claims form on the ADR scheme's website by visiting commsombudsman.org/raise-dispute/three or send a letter.
The ADR scheme looks at the evidence from you and your provider before making a decision.
If it agrees you should get compensation and you accept the decision, your network has 28 days to pay.
If you reject the decision, you won't be able to claim the resolution offered.
CUT YOUR TELECOM COSTS
By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter
Switching contracts is one of the single best ways to save money on your mobile, broadband and TV bills.
But if you can't switch mid-contract without facing a penalty, you'd be best to hold off until it's up for renewal.
But don't just switch contracts because the price is cheaper than what you're currently paying.
Take a look at your minutes and texts, as well as your data usage, to find out which deal is best for you.
For example, if you're a heavy internet user, it's worth finding a deal that accommodates this so you don't have to spend extra on bundles or add-ons each month.
In the weeks before your contract is up, use comparison sites to familiarise yourself with what deals are available.
It's a known fact that new customers always get the best deals.
Sites like MoneySuperMarket and Uswitch all help you customise your search based on price, allowances and provider.
This should make it easier to decide whether to renew your contract or move to another provider.
However, if you don't want to switch and are happy with the service you're getting under your current provider - haggle for a better deal.
You can still make significant savings by renewing your contract rather than rolling on to the tariff you're given after your deal.
If you need to speak to a company on the phone, be sure to catch them at the right time.
Make some time to negotiate with your provider in the morning.
This way, you have a better chance of being the first customer through on the phone, and the rep won't have worked tirelessly through previous calls which may have affected their stress levels.
It pays to be polite when getting through to someone on the phone, as representatives are less inclined to help rude or aggressive customers.
Knowing what other offers are on the market can help you to make a case for yourself to your provider.
If your provider won't haggle, you can always threaten to leave.
Companies don't want to lose customers and may come up with a last-minute offer to keep you.
It's also worth investigating social tariffs. These deals have been created for people who are receiving certain benefits.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
UAE fund buys $100 million of Trump's World Liberty tokens
LONDON, June 27 (Reuters) - A United Arab Emirates-based fund has bought $100 million worth of digital tokens issued by World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture of U.S. President Donald Trump's family, becoming its largest publicly known investor. Aqua 1 Foundation said in a statement on Thursday its purchase of the tokens, known as $WLFI, sought to speed up the creation of a "blockchain-powered financial ecosystem" with stablecoins and tokenised traditional assets at its heart. A spokesperson for World Liberty confirmed the investment to Reuters. A so-called governance token, $WLFI cannot be traded but gives holders the right to vote on changes to the business' underlying code. World Liberty said this week it was "working behind the scenes" to make the token transferable. "WLFI and Aqua 1 will jointly identify and nurture high-potential blockchain projects together," Aqua 1 founding partner Dave Lee said in the statement. The fund's investment and compliance teams would help World Liberty expand in South America, Europe and Asia, it added. Despite its investment, Aqua 1 maintains a minimal online presence. Its X account has only three posts and approximately 1,120 followers while its website was created on May 28, according to data from two web domain trackers. World Liberty also plans to support the launch of a separate Aqua 1 fund aimed at boosting the "digital economy transformation" in the Middle East through blockchain and artificial intelligence, the statement said. Aqua 1 did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the World Liberty spokesperson had no further immediate comment. Launched two months before the 2024 U.S. presidential election by Trump and his business partners, World Liberty has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Republican president's family business. World Liberty has drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers and government ethics watchdogs over potential conflicts of interest. The Trump Organization has said the president's investments, assets and business interests are held in a trust managed by his children. World Liberty aims to open access to financial services via digital tokens, without intermediaries such as banks. It has launched a stablecoin called USD1 that was bolstered in May when an Abu Dhabi investment firm chose it for a $2 billion investment in giant crypto exchange Binance.


The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Asos customers banned for being ‘serial returners' say it is ‘deeply concerning'
Shoppers using the online retailer Asos have complained about having their accounts closed and being accused of breaching a 'fair use' policy on returns. Asos updated its terms and conditions last September, introducing charges for shoppers who frequently returned large numbers of goods in attempts to crack down on 'serial returners'. In the past few days some customers have reported receiving emails saying their accounts would be deactivated. One shopper, Tskenya-Sarah Frazer, said she had been contacted to say her account had been closed because she had made too many returns. 'As a tall, plus-sized, neurodivergent customer I find Asos's decision to deactivate accounts without warning deeply concerning,' she said. 'For people like me, online shopping isn't just a preference, it's a necessity. The high street often doesn't cater to our body types or sensory needs, and the physical act of shopping can be overwhelming … We rely on online retailers to try clothes in the safety and comfort of our own homes.' Frazer, whose video sharing her experience has had 150,000 views on TikTok, said one of the reasons for the returns was inconsistent sizing. 'To now be penalised for returning items that don't fit after being forced to order multiple sizes due to inconsistent sizing is not only unfair, it's discriminatory,' she said. 'There was no explanation, no transparency, and no chance to appeal.' On X (formerly Twitter) another user posted a picture of two bodysuits which were both labelled as medium but appeared to be different sizes. I'm a size 8-10. I mostly wear a size S. The bodysuit on the left is M (too small). The bodysuit on the right is also M (too big). But ASOS are closing my account because I return things 😂 @ASOS_news They said: 'I'm a size eight to 10. I mostly wear a size small. The bodysuit on the left is a medium (too small). The body suit on the right is also medium (too big). But Asos are closing my account because I return things.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Asos said: 'We recently closed the accounts of a small group of customers whose shopping activity has consistently fallen outside our fair use policy. This helps us maintain our commitment to offering free returns to all customers across all core markets.' Gary Rycroft, a consumer lawyer at Joseph A Jones & Co solicitors, said it was lawful for a business to decide it did not wish to conduct business with a certain group of customers, as long as the decision was based on commercial data and not discriminatory. 'Asos have imposed a threshold on returns and that's fine for them to change their terms and conditions and as long as other statutory protections for consumers are not breached,' he said. Such a change in terms and conditions should not affect the right of consumers to return goods that are faulty or not as described, he matching a retailer's published measurements for particular sizes could be said to be 'not as described'.


Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
Kitchen fitter branded ‘worst ever seen' sues for defamation
A kitchen fitter is claiming nearly £20,000 in damages after a homeowner posted a scathing online review that described his work as the 'worst I have ever seen'. In a move that could have a lasting impact on the building trade, Benjamin Johnson has gone before a High Court judge to bring a defamation claim against his former client. After a judge granted permission for the claim to proceed, Johnson said he was suing because he was 'sick and tired' of customers who 'can do what they want and think they can get away with it'. The dispute centres on comments by Stephen Helm, the disgruntled homeowner, who publicly stated that Johnson was an 'absolute joke' and warned others to 'avoid' using him. On a website for reviews of tradesmen, Helm claimed that Johnson 'damaged everything', adding that he was 'the worst fitter I have ever seen'. Johnson, who is based in Preston, told the court that the review remained online for more than 17 months and that as a result customers cancelled jobs, which left him £19,000 out of pocket. The dispute broke out after Helm hired the fitter in 2022 to carry out work on his kitchen. The preliminary hearing in the High Court was told that the two then rowed about the standard of Johnson's work and he stopped the job. As a result, Helm and Johnson agreed a financial settlement but the next month the homeowner posted a review of Johnson's Joinery onto a website for comments on local businesses. • No mate of mine: the perils of reviewing a handyman Helm's review said: 'The worse [sic] fitter I have ever seen, ruined everything he touched, didn't do a full day. Damaged everything and can't draw a straight line. Cut into the units which didn't need touching. Plasterboarded the walls and we lost 10cm for no reason.' In addition, Helm described the fitter as 'lazy' and claimed that there were 'dangerous health concerns regarding his work as he pushed pipes into the waste pipe for washing machine and dishwasher and sealed with silicone which backed up waste from toilet into the machines'. He advised readers of the review site to 'avoid avoid avoid', saying that Johnson was an 'absolute joke, embarrassing and when questioned for consumer rights claim said his feelings were hurt as we were questioning his character. Should not be in business so avoid'. Johnson launched court proceedings in 2023 and in response to the claim, Helm has argued that he was sharing the 'truth and honest opinion'. If Helm can prove that his criticism of the fitter was true and that he honestly believes his comments were accurate, Johnson's defamation claim will fail. Helm has also launched a counterclaim seeking damages for breach of contract in respect to the works carried out. Judge Spearman ruled that the wording of the review 'plainly contains some statements of opinion and some statements of fact' as he allowed the claim to proceed to a full trial.