Hundreds of customers were affected
The CMA says some suppliers cancelled domestic heating-oil orders when prices and demand rose sharply. The affected customers had placed orders through an intermediary site. After intervening, the regulator secured voluntary compensation from suppliers and issued an industry-wide reminder about terms that attempt to remove or reduce liability for non-performance or delay.
The commercial temptation is obvious. If a supplier accepted an order at one price and the wholesale market then moved against it, cancelling and reselling the same product at the higher price might protect its margin. Consumer contract law does not permit every commercial risk to be shifted back to the customer through broad small-print exclusions.
What the CMA has made clear
- Consumer contract terms and notices must be fair as well as transparent.
- An unfair term is not binding on the consumer, even if it appears in the written contract.
- A clause excluding all responsibility for failure or delay is less likely to be fair.
- A supplier should not retain broad discretion to perform only when it remains commercially convenient.
- Important or unusual limits must be prominent and their practical consequences understandable before the contract is made.
- A fairer disruption clause should identify genuinely external circumstances and preserve an appropriate right to cancel without loss.
First establish whether a contract had been formed
A checkout confirmation does not always mean the supplier has accepted the order. Some sites treat the customer's submission as an offer and form the contract only when the supplier issues a separate acceptance or dispatch confirmation. Others accept immediately. The wording, sequence and conduct matter.
Evidence that helps establish the position
| Document or event | Question it helps answer | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Order page and terms | When does the site say acceptance occurs? | Rights for breach depend on whether a binding contract was formed. |
| Confirmation email | Does it merely acknowledge the request or expressly accept the order? | The label alone is less important than the wording. |
| Payment record | Was money taken, reserved or later released? | Payment can support the chronology but does not decide formation by itself. |
| Delivery date or slot | Had the supplier committed to a defined performance date? | Delay and cancellation may have different consequences. |
| Cancellation message | What precise reason and term did the supplier rely on? | A vague reference to market conditions may not establish a valid exclusion. |
| Replacement purchase | What did equivalent oil cost after cancellation? | This may evidence loss and reasonable mitigation. |
Clear wording can still be unfair
Transparency requires plain, intelligible and legible wording presented so that an average consumer can understand the practical effect. But clarity is not a complete defence. A perfectly readable clause can still create a significant imbalance contrary to good faith and therefore be unfair.
A price rise is not automatically force majeure
Whether a market disruption excuses performance depends on the actual contract and circumstances. A supplier should not assume that a more expensive purchase price, reduced margin or ordinary commercial difficulty automatically activates a broad cancellation power.
The intermediary website complicates responsibility
Where an order is placed through a comparison, broker or collective-purchasing website, the consumer may interact with one business while the supply contract is made with another. The platform may arrange the transaction, take payment or send communications without being the party responsible for delivering the oil.
Identify the parties before demanding a remedy
Check the order page and confirmation for the named seller or supplier.
Identify which business took the payment and which issued the invoice.
Read the platform's description of its own role and any supplier terms incorporated into the order.
Send the complaint to the supplier responsible for performance and copy the intermediary where its communications or conduct are relevant.
Do not allow either business to redirect you indefinitely. Ask each to state its contractual role and the basis on which it denies responsibility.
A refund may not answer the full loss
If money was taken for an order that will not be supplied, repayment is the starting point. Where a binding contract was breached, a consumer may also argue that reasonably foreseeable loss caused by the breach should be met, such as the additional cost of obtaining equivalent oil elsewhere. This is fact-sensitive and the consumer must act reasonably to limit loss.
Consequential claims become harder where the contract was never accepted, the loss is speculative, the replacement order is not equivalent, or the consumer delayed unreasonably while prices continued to rise. Preserve live quotations and the timing of the replacement purchase rather than relying on a later estimate.
How to challenge a cancelled order
Ask the supplier to commit to its position
Save the complete order journey, confirmation, terms, promised delivery date and cancellation notice.
Ask whether the supplier says no contract was formed or accepts that it cancelled an existing contract.
If it relies on a term, request the exact wording and where it was brought to your attention before ordering.
Explain why the term appears unfair or does not cover the stated event, referring to the CMA's September 2026 open letter.
Request the refund immediately and itemise any additional evidenced loss separately.
Take reasonable steps to secure replacement oil and retain the quotations, order and delivery evidence.
Escalate through the supplier's complaint route, payment provider where relevant, and consumer-enforcement channels if the issue remains unresolved.
A focused cancellation challenge
You accepted order [reference] for [quantity] litres at [price], with delivery due by [date]. You cancelled on [date] citing [reason]. Please identify the precise contractual term relied upon, explain when it was made prominent before purchase and why you consider it fair under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I require the immediate refund of £[amount] and reimbursement of the attached £[difference] reasonable additional cost of obtaining equivalent oil after your cancellation.
Why this matters to ConsumerWise readers
The principle reaches well beyond heating oil. Businesses often respond to non-performance by pointing to a disclaimer as though its presence ends the discussion. Consumer law asks further questions: Was it incorporated? Was it prominent? Is it transparent? Does it cover the event? Most importantly, is it fair?
The bottom line
A supplier facing a disrupted market may need carefully drafted protections, but it cannot give itself an unlimited right to abandon accepted orders while leaving consumers to absorb every consequence. Establish the contract, obtain the cancellation reason, test the term for fairness and preserve the real cost of putting the household back in the position it reasonably expected.
Official sources
- CMA: Heating oil suppliers using fair terms and conditionsThe 10 September 2026 publication and background to the CMA's intervention.
- CMA open letter to domestic heating-oil suppliersThe regulator's analysis of transparency, unfair terms and exclusions of liability.
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2The statutory framework for unfair consumer terms and notices.
- CMA: Unfair contract terms guidanceDetailed guidance on fairness, transparency and exclusion clauses.
