Sales call vs order confirmation

Put the versions side by side

Build a short contradiction schedule. Quote or summarise the sales representation, then record the corresponding contract-summary term, order-confirmation term and actual billing/provisioning result. Add dates and evidence references.

An order confirmation is evidence: not a time machine

The confirmation can be strong evidence of what the provider processed, but it does not automatically prove what was said before the order or what information was supplied before consent. If a disputed charge appears for the first time in a confirmation sent after agreement, ask how and when it was disclosed earlier.

A sales promise is not automatically meaningless

An adviser’s statement can matter as a representation or potentially a contractual term depending on the facts. Avoid arguing at label level. Identify the statement, whether it was factual, whether it influenced the decision, and how it conflicts with the later position.

If the provider says “the adviser would never have said that”

That is not evidence of what happened on the particular call. Ask whether the call, transcript, quality-assurance record or adviser notes are held. If not, ask what transaction-specific evidence the provider relies on for its version.

Similarly, a training script can show what advisers were expected to do, but it does not by itself prove what one adviser actually said.

Separate what was promised from what was later recorded

Build two short columns. In the first, record the representation you say influenced the decision: price, speed, feature, cancellation right, equipment, start date or contract length. In the second, quote or summarise the corresponding term in the written summary or confirmation. Then add a third column for any objective record such as a call recording, contemporaneous note, chat transcript or order audit entry.

This makes the issue much harder to dismiss as a general disagreement about memory. It also exposes cases where the documents are internally inconsistent, for example, the confirmation may show one monthly price while a billing system or later contract extract shows another.

Later paperwork cannot retrospectively supply pre-contract information

For customers covered by Ofcom's contract-summary rules, the timing is central. A provider may send a perfectly clear confirmation after an order, but it should still be able to explain what contract summary and detailed information were supplied before consent and before the customer became bound. If it relies only on post-sale paperwork, ask it to identify the earlier disclosure step.

Do not let “the system would not allow it” replace evidence

Statements about what an adviser could or could not have done may be relevant, but they are not a substitute for the actual transaction record. Ask for the package/order code, available offer or promotion applied, any manual adjustment, the final basket and the audit events. If a provider says the alleged promise was impossible, it should be able to explain why and reconcile that with what was billed or provisioned.

Frame the remedy around the discrepancy

If the written deal is wrong but the promised deal can still be supplied, ask whether the account can be corrected to the represented terms. If not, consider whether you want cancellation without penalty, a refund of the difference, removal of an add-on or another proportionate remedy. Keep the complaint focused on the mismatch and the evidence rather than treating every sales dispute as automatically requiring the same outcome.

Evidence worth keeping