REFERRAL TO CONSUMER OMBUDSMAN OR APPROVED ADR SCHEME
IMPORTANT LEGAL, JURISDICTION AND FORMALITY WARNING
This fictional referral is an educational worked example, not legal advice, a finding of fault, a court claim or a guarantee that the named ombudsman will accept the complaint. It assumes a consumer in England and Wales and a trader that participates in, or is required to offer, a particular ADR scheme. The scheme must independently confirm jurisdiction, time limits, eligibility, the respondent, remedy limits and whether the service is binding. Sending this referral does not stop limitation, suspend enforcement or prevent a court deadline from running. The consumer must not assume that an ombudsman can decide a complaint outside its rules or against a non-member trader. Obtain advice before rejecting a determination, accepting settlement or issuing proceedings.
Date: 16 November 2026
To: Consumer Ombudsman, Referral and Assessment Team Proposed respondent: BrightCurrent Energy Solutions Limited, 6 Foundry Lane, Nottingham NG7 3DP Trader email: resolutions@brightcurrent.example.test
From: Aisha Noreen Malik, 73 Trent View, Nottingham NG2 5RL Telephone: 0115 555 2894 Email: aisha.malik@example.test
Trader complaint reference: BC-260511-31 Subject: Referral request — defective domestic battery installation and unresolved refund complaint
1. Jurisdiction and consent request
I ask the Consumer Ombudsman or the appropriate approved consumer ADR body to assess whether it has jurisdiction over this complaint. BrightCurrent’s contract terms supplied on 8 February 2026 stated that unresolved consumer complaints could be referred to “the applicable independent ADR service” after the trader’s final response. BrightCurrent’s final response of 8 September 2026 named the Consumer Ombudsman in its footer but did not state whether participation was mandatory, voluntary or subject to a value limit. I have not assumed that the reference itself establishes jurisdiction. Please confirm whether BrightCurrent is a participating respondent, whether this installation service falls within the scheme’s scope, whether the time and value limits are met, and whether another ADR body is the correct destination.
If the referral is accepted, I consent to the ombudsman sharing relevant parts of my complaint and evidence with BrightCurrent and to BrightCurrent responding through the scheme. I ask that health, bank and unrelated household information be redacted or handled securely. I understand that the ombudsman may close or decline a complaint, request more information, issue a recommendation or make a determination according to its rules. I will comply with directions and will not describe acceptance as binding until the scheme’s terms and the effect of acceptance are clear.
2. Contract and requested outcome
On 8 February 2026 I bought a domestic battery-storage installation from BrightCurrent for £6,480.00. The quotation covered a 9.6 kWh battery, inverter integration, wall mounting, electrical protection, commissioning and connection to my existing solar panels at 73 Trent View, Nottingham NG2 5RL. I paid £1,000.00 by debit card on 8 February, £3,000.00 by bank transfer on 20 February and £2,480.00 by bank transfer on 18 March, making total payment of £6,480.00.
The quotation stated that the battery would be installed by 31 March 2026 and configured to store surplus solar generation for evening household use. It did not promise a particular electricity bill saving. Installation occurred on 7 April 2026. The system repeatedly shut down after a short charge, the monitoring application reported a “temperature sensor communication” fault, and the inverter did not export or discharge consistently. BrightCurrent’s engineer attended on 22 April and replaced a communications lead. The fault returned on 4 May. BrightCurrent then reset the system remotely on 11 May, but the battery shut down again on 15 May. I have not altered the settings, moved the equipment or permitted another installer to work on it.
My primary remedy is a full refund of £6,480.00 against safe removal of the battery, inverter integration equipment supplied by BrightCurrent and associated cabling, with BrightCurrent restoring the wall and electrical connection safely at its cost. My alternative, if the ombudsman considers a repair proportionate, is a replacement system of equivalent or better specification installed and commissioned without further payment, together with reimbursement of £394.00 total for the independent electrical inspection and two electrician call-outs described below. I do not claim the unverified future electricity savings that I hoped to obtain.
I claim £310.00 for a report from Thomas Elwood MIET, an independent electrical engineer, dated 28 July 2026. I also claim £84.00 for two necessary electrician call-outs at £42.00 each on 18 May and 2 June, when the system shut down and displayed the fault. My present monetary request is £6,874.00 if the refund remedy is selected, calculated as £6,480.00 + £310.00 + £84.00. I have not added interest because I ask the scheme to apply its own rules, if any, rather than assume that a court interest provision binds it.
3. Chronology and complaint process
BrightCurrent’s installer, Gareth Owen, completed an installation certificate on 7 April. The certificate states that the battery was commissioned, but the application was still showing a sensor warning when he left. I emailed BrightCurrent on 8 April and supplied a screenshot. On 12 April the support team said the warning could be a temporary pairing issue. On 22 April Mr Owen attended, tightened a terminal and changed the communications lead. The application showed normal status for one evening, then displayed the same warning on 4 May.
I opened formal complaint BC-260511-31 on 11 May. I explained that my elderly father, Nabil Malik, relies on an electrically powered stairlift when visiting and that I could not risk an unreliable electrical installation, although the battery was not connected to the stairlift. BrightCurrent offered a remote reset on 11 May and a further visit on 23 May. The battery shut down on 15 May. On 23 May the replacement engineer, Lena Price, found an error code and said a manufacturer escalation might be needed. No manufacturer appointment was arranged by 10 June.
I sent a written complaint on 10 June asking for a repair timetable, replacement or refund. BrightCurrent replied on 25 June that the issue was “probably software” and asked me to continue monitoring. The system recorded no reliable discharge between 16 June and 7 July. I allowed BrightCurrent another inspection on 12 July. Its engineer updated firmware but did not test the battery through a full charge and discharge cycle. The same communication fault appeared on 16 July.
Mr Elwood inspected the system on 28 July. He reviewed the installation certificate, error logs and visible cabling, tested protective devices and recorded that the battery could not complete a controlled cycle. He did not dismantle the battery or make a warranty finding. His report recommends either replacement by a competent installer after manufacturer diagnosis or safe removal and refund. I sent the report and a request for a final response on 1 August.
BrightCurrent’s final response dated 8 September offered a further remote reset and denied a refund. It said the installation was “operational at commissioning” but did not address the repeated shutdowns, the uncompleted cycle test or the engineer’s report. I replied on 15 September asking for clarification of ADR membership and confirming that I would seek independent review. BrightCurrent repeated its position on 29 September and stated that the final response remained unchanged. This referral follows that final response and is made within what I understand to be the scheme’s time window, subject to the scheme’s own assessment.
4. Issues for assessment
I ask the ombudsman to assess:
1. whether the battery installation and commissioning met the agreed description and the standard reasonably expected of a professional installation service; 2. whether repeated sensor faults and shutdowns show that the goods or service were not satisfactory, durable or fit for the purpose explained to BrightCurrent; 3. whether BrightCurrent was given a reasonable opportunity to repair or replace the system and whether the further remote reset offer was proportionate after multiple failed interventions; 4. whether removal and refund, replacement, or another remedy is fair under the scheme’s rules; and 5. whether BrightCurrent should reimburse the £394.00 of evidenced inspection and call-out costs.
I do not ask the ombudsman to award speculative electricity savings, punish BrightCurrent, decide a criminal allegation or determine a dispute outside its jurisdiction. I also do not say that one failed installation automatically proves every legal issue. BrightCurrent may inspect the equipment through the scheme, provided that it gives reasonable notice, uses a competent person and preserves logs before resetting or altering the system. The equipment remains installed and available for a non-destructive inspection.
5. Evidence index
The evidence available is: AM-01, quotation and terms dated 8 February; AM-02, three payment confirmations totalling £6,480.00; AM-03, installation certificate dated 7 April; AM-04, application screenshots and error logs from 8 April to 16 July; AM-05, service notes for 22 April, 23 May and 12 July; AM-06, formal complaint of 11 May; AM-07, correspondence of 10 June and 1 August; AM-08, Thomas Elwood’s report dated 28 July; AM-09, electrician invoices of £42.00 each; AM-10, final response dated 8 September; and AM-11, my reply and BrightCurrent’s message of 29 September.
The bank records will be redacted to show only date, amount, payee and reference. I can upload the application logs in their original format if the portal accepts them. I ask that the scheme tell me if a document is missing or if a technical report is needed, rather than dismissing the complaint merely because a particular format is unavailable.
6. Remedy, communication and limitation
If the matter is accepted, please record my preferred outcome as a refund of £6,480.00 against safe removal, plus £394.00 evidenced costs, or alternatively an equivalent fully working replacement and £394.00 costs. I will consider a reasonable written settlement. I will not treat a proposed remedy as accepted until I understand whether it is binding, the deadline for acceptance, who removes the equipment and what happens to the complaint if the work fails.
Please communicate by email and copy BrightCurrent only on information necessary to answer the complaint. I understand that an ADR referral may not extend any limitation period or prevent a court claim, and I will monitor those matters separately. If the scheme declines jurisdiction, please state the reason and identify any applicable complaint route without asserting that another body must accept it.
Yours faithfully,
Aisha Noreen Malik
Signed electronically by Aisha Noreen Malik on 16 November 2026