Check what you were told
A business, lender, employer, council or other organisation has given you an answer. Search the idea they gave you and check what actually applies.
Write it naturally: you do not need the legal term.
Browse the statements
Some answers are wrong. Others are only partly right or depend on facts the organisation has left out. Search the wording you were given, or narrow the statements below by category.
Filter by category to narrow the statements below. Choose the area that best matches what happened.
Showing statements from all categories
A supplier remedy can reduce or resolve loss, but it does not automatically extinguish every possible Section 75 issue.
Check this statementChargeback is generally a card-scheme process, not the same statutory cause of action as Section 75.
Check this statementA dispute beginning with a merchant can still engage card-scheme chargeback or statutory Section 75 rights where their conditions are met.
Check this statementAn intermediary can affect the required debtor-creditor-supplier chain, but the answer depends on the payment structure rather than the brand name alone.
Check this statementA qualifying Section 75 claim can exist even where only part of the purchase price was paid using the relevant credit arrangement, subject to the statutory conditions.
Check this statementAn internal policy does not bind FOS to find the outcome fair and reasonable.
Check this statementCard-scheme chargeback time limits vary by reason code and can run from different trigger dates.
Check this statementAuthorising a payment does not necessarily end all analysis of an authorised push-payment scam under the applicable reimbursement/regulatory framework.
Check this statementMany ombudsman schemes are required or expected to have regard to law, regulation and good practice while applying their own fair-and-reasonable/remit tests.
Check this statementA final response generally marks the organisation’s final internal complaint position; it is not the same thing as a court judgment.
Check this statementNo further internal complaint stage does not necessarily mean there is no external route.
Check this statementAn ombudsman outcome is not the same as legal precedent and its binding effect depends on the particular scheme and acceptance rules.
Check this statementRegulatory non-action does not prove that an individual complaint has no merit.
Check this statementMentioning an issue is not necessarily the same as addressing the question, evidence and conclusion required to decide it.
Check this statementA goodwill offer can expressly be made without admission of liability.
Check this statementAn organisation cannot generally make access to an external statutory/ADR complaint route depend on accepting settlement of the dispute.
Check this statementWithout-prejudice privilege is a nuanced rule protecting genuine settlement negotiations; the label alone is not conclusive and exceptions exist.
Check this statementWhether an ombudsman outcome affects later court rights depends on the scheme, whether the decision was accepted, settlement terms and the cause of action.
Check this statementCosts on the small-claims track are generally restricted; it is not the same ordinary costs regime as higher-value litigation.
Check this statementJudgment establishes the obligation, but payment and enforcement are separate stages if the losing party does not pay voluntarily.
Check this statementThe small-claims track is designed to be proportionate, but parties still need to comply with court orders and prove the facts they rely on.
Check this statementAdministrative issue of a claim does not mean a judge has determined that the allegations are true.
Check this statementPre-action conduct is an important part of civil procedure and can affect case management and costs.
Check this statementIndividuals can represent themselves in civil proceedings, including small claims.
Check this statementConsumer Credit Act information/enforceability issues are more nuanced than “no copy means no debt”.
Check this statementCollection status does not create a free-standing right to impose any fee the collector chooses.
Check this statementAssignment can change who owns or collects the debt, but it does not rewrite the historical conduct or necessarily remove complaint responsibility for the original firm’s acts.
Check this statementA statutory CCA default notice and a default reported to a credit reference agency are related to different legal/reporting concepts.
Check this statementMaking a complaint does not automatically extinguish a debt, but firms and collectors may have obligations about fair treatment and genuinely disputed balances.
Check this statementA payment can be evidence, but it does not automatically prove every disputed component, contractual basis or amount.
Check this statementA business can maintain that money remains due, but conditioning any investigation on prior payment can be problematic where there is a substantive dispute.
Check this statementA consumer agreeing to credit does not automatically answer whether a regulated lender carried out appropriate creditworthiness/affordability assessment or treated the customer fairly.
Check this statementThe normal retention period does not prevent correction or removal where the entry itself is inaccurate or should not have been reported as it was.
Check this statementA repayment arrangement is relevant to the chronology, but it does not create an absolute bar on a later default.
Check this statementA lower credit score is not itself evidence that the underlying account data is inaccurate.
Check this statementThe absence or defect of a CCA enforcement notice does not automatically determine whether a CRA default entry is accurate.
Check this statementPaying a defaulted account ordinarily changes its status to satisfied/settled; it does not by itself require immediate deletion of an otherwise accurate default.
Check this statementA credit-file default is intended to represent a serious breakdown in the relationship, not simply any isolated late payment.
Check this statementThe organisation that supplied the data normally has an important role in correcting inaccurate information; the CRA is not the sole decision-maker.
Check this statementA verification response is evidence of the provider’s position, not proof that the underlying data is correct.
Check this statementSubject access is a right to personal data and supplementary information, not automatically to complete unredacted copies of every document.
Check this statementThe right to erasure is qualified and does not apply in every circumstance.
Check this statementInternal emails can contain the requester’s personal data and are not categorically excluded merely because they are internal.
Check this statementA controller should take reasonable steps to assess a substantiated accuracy challenge; the existing system entry is not self-proving.
Check this statementThe ICO can investigate/regulate compliance but does not ordinarily award damages to an individual complainant.
Check this statementAn extension is not automatic merely because a request is large.
Check this statementUK GDPR uses a one-month response period, which is not always identical to 30 calendar days.
Check this statementAn organisation can provide a convenient form, but a valid subject access request does not generally depend on using the controller’s preferred wording or channel.
Check this statementOwnership of equipment does not remove data-protection, privacy and employment-law considerations.
Check this statementA policy alone does not automatically make every wage deduction lawful.
Check this statementA genuine business rationale does not make selection and dismissal procedure immune from scrutiny.
Check this statementHarassment under the Equality Act is tied to protected characteristics (and specific sexual-harassment rules), but harmful workplace bullying can still raise grievance, contractual, health-and-safety or other employment issues.
Check this statementProbation is mainly a contractual/employment-management concept; it does not switch off statutory employment rights.
Check this statementLength of service can be crucial for ordinary unfair dismissal under the current transitional regime, but it is not a universal bar to every dismissal-related claim.
Check this statementAn employment contract can exist without a signed written document.
Check this statementAn internal grievance or appeal does not generally stop an employment tribunal limitation period running.
Check this statementPerishable goods are excluded from the ordinary distance-selling change-of-mind cancellation right, but that does not remove rights when food is not supplied, is wrong, unsafe, misdescribed or otherwise fails the contract.
Check this statementMissing or incorrect items can still justify a refund or price reduction for the affected part. Whether the whole order can be rejected depends on how significant and inseparable the failure is.
Check this statementAn app or support-team decision is not the same thing as a legal determination of your rights. A valid contractual or statutory claim can still exist after an internal refund request is refused.
Check this statementAn estimate is relevant, but it is not a universal immunity from serious delay. Timing can be contractually important, and with prepared food excessive delay can also affect the condition and value of what arrives.
Check this statementA delivery status is evidence, but it does not by itself prove that the order actually reached you or an authorised recipient.
Check this statementThere is no sensible blanket rule that temperature can never matter. Food sold as a hot prepared meal can fail the required quality or contractual standard if it arrives materially cold or otherwise unusable, depending on the facts.
Check this statementAccount credit can be offered as goodwill, but where a statutory monetary refund is actually due the trader cannot necessarily force the consumer to accept platform credit instead.
Check this statementFraud controls can legitimately inform an investigation, but a customer’s refund history does not by itself determine whether this particular order was delivered correctly and met the required standard.
Check this statementThe restaurant may be the supplier of the food, but some platforms separately provide the delivery service themselves. Responsibility depends on what failed and who contracted to provide that part.
Check this statementA platform can set a prompt reporting process, and delay can make a food complaint much harder to prove, but an internal time window does not automatically erase statutory rights.
Check this statementA sale price does not by itself remove the ordinary distance-contract cancellation regime.
Check this statementA tracking scan is evidence, not an automatic answer to a retailer’s delivery obligations.
Check this statementFor distance cancellations involving goods, the trader can in some circumstances withhold reimbursement until it receives the goods back or the consumer supplies evidence of having sent them back, whichever occurs first.
Check this statementOn a qualifying distance cancellation, the refund normally includes the cost of the least expensive standard delivery option offered by the trader.
Check this statementReturn-cost rules differ between change-of-mind cancellation and faulty goods; “you always pay” is too broad.
Check this statementAn authorised safe-place instruction can affect the delivery analysis, but it is not a universal answer to every missing-parcel dispute.
Check this statementCollection location does not necessarily decide where or how the contract was concluded.
Check this statementOpening packaging does not automatically defeat every distance cancellation, but exceptions and handling rules can matter.
Check this statementFor FOI/EIR complaints, the expected route usually includes asking the authority to conduct an internal review before ICO escalation, subject to the applicable regime and circumstances.
Check this statementEIR is a distinct access regime with overlapping but different rules, exceptions and public-interest considerations.
Check this statementThere is no single universal two-stage structure governing every local-authority complaint.
Check this statementThe ordinary FOIA response period is 20 working days, not 20 calendar days.
Check this statementA request for your own personal data is usually handled under data-protection subject access rules rather than FOIA.
Check this statementWhere legislation provides a specific appeal/review route, an ombudsman may be unable or unwilling to substitute for it.
Check this statementNHS complaint handling does not operate under one universal 28-day final-response deadline.
Check this statementFOI requests generally do not require the applicant to justify why they want the information.
Check this statementA retailer’s voluntary returns window does not automatically determine a statutory faulty-goods claim.
Check this statementA receipt is useful evidence, but it is not automatically the only way to prove a purchase or exercise statutory rights.
Check this statementA reduced price does not remove statutory rights simply because the item was on sale.
Check this statementA commercial warranty and your statutory rights are separate. Expiry of the warranty does not itself decide whether the retailer is liable for faulty goods.
Check this statementThe Consumer Rights Act does not create a general rule giving a trader three repair attempts before further remedies can arise.
Check this statementWhere the law gives a consumer a right to a refund, a trader cannot normally substitute store credit merely because that is its preferred policy.
Check this statementThey may be correct that a replacement or exchange itself cannot be supplied if there is genuinely no stock. What follows depends on why you wanted the exchange: a voluntary change-of-mind policy is different from the statutory remedy route for faulty goods.
Check this statementFor statutory rights relating to goods sold by a retailer, the consumer’s contract is ordinarily with the retailer.
Check this statementUse can matter differently depending on whether you are cancelling an online purchase, relying on a voluntary returns policy, or asserting that the goods are faulty.
Check this statementWhether a quote forms part of the contract depends on the wording, context and later agreement; it cannot be dismissed categorically.
Check this statementCalling a payment a “non-refundable deposit” does not make every retention automatically lawful.
Check this statementOral statements can matter. The real question is whether the statement became a contractual term, representation or otherwise legally relevant promise.
Check this statementStarting performance does not create a universal “no refund” rule.
Check this statementA variation clause is not automatically a blank cheque, particularly in a consumer contract.
Check this statementA term normally needs to be properly incorporated into the contract; merely existing somewhere on a website does not answer when or how it was brought to the consumer’s attention.
Check this statementA trader may still have a statutory duty to perform a paid service with reasonable care and skill even where no particular result was guaranteed.
Check this statementSignature can be important evidence of agreement, but it does not make every consumer term immune from statutory controls.
Check this statementAn internal billing position does not by itself prove that external credit reporting is accurate.
Check this statementOfcom is the sector regulator and does not ordinarily resolve individual telecom disputes by awarding consumer redress.
Check this statementCurrent telecom price-rise rules require much clearer upfront information, and contracts entered under the newer regime cannot rely on opaque inflation-linked formulas in the old way.
Check this statementContract terms do not necessarily displace statutory, regulatory or automatic-compensation obligations where those regimes apply.
Check this statementAn order confirmation is useful evidence of what the provider processed, but it may be generated after consent and does not by itself prove what was disclosed or represented beforehand.
Check this statementA statement about normal training or process does not prove what was said in one particular sale. Transaction-specific evidence matters.
Check this statementAn internal activation status can be relevant, but it does not automatically establish that usable service was supplied or that every charge from that date is contractually correct.
Check this statementBroadband speed information is more nuanced: point-of-sale estimates matter, and providers signed up to Ofcom’s Broadband Speeds Code give a minimum guaranteed speed with specific resolution and exit protections.
Check this statementCompletion of a switch does not erase billing errors, loss of service, double charging or compensation issues caused during the process.
Check this statementAutomated billing records are evidence, not infallible proof.
Check this statementA provider closing its internal case does not itself remove an eligible consumer’s external ADR rights.
Check this statementA SAR gives you access to your personal data, not an automatic right to every original document or recording in a particular format. But personal data in a held call recording can fall within the right of access, and the provider should search reasonably and proportionately.
Check this statementFor residential telecom contracts, Ofcom’s rules require the contract summary before consent and the detailed contract information before the customer is bound; sending everything only after agreement does not normally answer that requirement.
Check this statementAcceptance can be central, but it does not answer what terms were presented, whether the required pre-contract information was supplied, or whether the sale was misrepresented.
Check this statementA verbal consent record can be important evidence, but the provider still needs to establish what you agreed to and that the required pre-contract information was supplied before consent.
Check this statementThat is outdated for current UK telecom complaint handling: the general ADR waiting period was reduced to six weeks from 8 April 2026.
Check this statementThat can be a valid diagnosis if the incoming broadband connection meets its benchmark, but it does not resolve a separate Wi-Fi guarantee or prove that Wi-Fi is actually the cause.
Check this statementTry fewer words, choose another subject, or search the main ConsumerWise knowledge base.
Search ConsumerWiseNot sure what applies?
If you are not starting from something an organisation has told you, the rights checker begins with your situation and narrows down the rules, evidence and next step that may matter.
Check what rights may apply →