CMA Warns Heating Oil Suppliers Over Unfair Cancellation Terms

What the CMA has told heating oil suppliers

On 10 September 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published an open letter to domestic heating oil suppliers. The letter reminds suppliers that terms and conditions in consumer contracts must be fair and transparent. This applies to all domestic heating oil suppliers, not just those that have been the subject of complaints. The CMA has asked suppliers to review their terms, especially exclusion and limitation clauses. These are the parts of a contract that seek to restrict what a supplier must do if something goes wrong, such as a delayed delivery or a cancelled order. The CMA's concern is that some contracts may already contain clauses that limit liability for late or non-delivery, or that suppliers may be redrafting terms to add disruption clauses. The open letter is a formal reminder of the legal obligations that apply to consumer contracts. It is not a finding that any particular supplier has broken the law, but it puts the industry on notice that the CMA is monitoring the situation.

The CMA's action follows a period of disruption in the heating oil market. Many households that rely on heating oil for their central heating and hot water order by the tank, often when the tank is low. When prices and demand surged, some suppliers cancelled orders that had already been placed. The CMA intervened and secured voluntary compensation from suppliers after finding that hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site were affected. The open letter is intended to prevent similar problems in the future by making clear what the law requires. The CMA has also published detailed guidance on unfair contract terms in CMA37 and on consumer protection enforcement in CMA58. These documents set out how the CMA and Trading Standards assess whether terms are fair. Suppliers are expected to take account of this guidance when drafting or reviewing their terms.

Why the CMA stepped in: cancelled orders and compensation

The CMA's intervention was prompted by reports that some heating oil suppliers cancelled orders when heating oil prices and demand surged following the conflict in the Middle East. At that time, many households were trying to fill their tanks, and some suppliers found it difficult to meet the increased demand. Instead of fulfilling orders, some suppliers cancelled them, leaving customers without heating oil and facing higher prices elsewhere. The CMA investigated and found that hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site were affected. The CMA secured voluntary compensation from suppliers for those customers. This means that the suppliers agreed to compensate affected customers without the CMA having to take formal enforcement action. The CMA's open letter is a follow-up to that intervention. It reminds suppliers that they must not rely on unfair terms to avoid their responsibilities. The CMA is concerned that some suppliers may have clauses in their contracts that limit liability for late or non-delivery, or that they may be adding new clauses to deal with future disruptions. Such clauses may be unfair and therefore not binding on consumers.

The CMA's action is part of its broader role in protecting consumers. The CMA shares its main consumer enforcement powers with local authority Trading Standards Services. This means that both the CMA and Trading Standards can take action against suppliers that use unfair terms. The CMA has asked all domestic heating oil suppliers to review their terms. This includes checking that any clauses about cancellations, delays, and force majeure are fair and transparent. Force majeure is a legal term that refers to unexpected events outside a party's control. If a supplier wants to rely on such a clause, it must be clear and specific. The CMA's guidance states that terms are more likely to be fair if they specify exactly when they apply, cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, and do not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault. The open letter puts suppliers on notice that the CMA will take action if it finds unfair terms.

The law: Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 protects consumers from unfair contract terms and notices. It applies to written or verbal terms, whether they are negotiated or standard form. It also applies to notices, such as announcements on a website. This means that a supplier cannot avoid its obligations by putting an unfair term in a contract or by displaying a notice that seeks to limit its liability. Under the Act, an unfair term is not binding on the consumer. This means that the supplier cannot rely on it. If the supplier has taken money under an unfair term, it may have to repay that money. The CMA and Trading Standards can take enforcement action against suppliers that use unfair terms. This can lead to financial penalties. The Act sets out a test for fairness. A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. The CMA's guidance explains how this test applies in practice.

The Act also includes a transparency test. Terms must be in plain, intelligible language. They must be legible and logically organised under clear headings. Onerous or unusual terms must be given appropriate emphasis. Legal jargon should be avoided. This means that suppliers cannot hide important terms in small print or use complex language to confuse consumers. If a term is not transparent, it may be unfair even if it is not otherwise unbalanced. The CMA's open letter reminds suppliers of these requirements. It asks them to review their terms to ensure that they comply with the law. The CMA is particularly concerned about clauses that exclude or limit liability for late or non-delivery. Such clauses are less likely to be fair if they exclude all liability for non-performance or delay, whether or not the supplier is at fault. They are also less likely to be fair if they let the supplier choose whether to perform while the consumer remains bound. The CMA's guidance provides examples of terms that are likely to be unfair and terms that are more likely to be fair.

Which cancellation and force majeure clauses are likely to be unfair

The CMA's guidance states that terms excluding liability are less likely to be fair if they exclude all liability for non-performance or delay, whether or not the supplier is at fault. This means that a clause that says the supplier is not responsible for any delay, even if the delay is entirely the supplier's fault, is likely to be unfair. Similarly, a clause that lets the supplier choose whether to perform while the consumer stays bound is likely to be unfair. For example, a term that allows the supplier to cancel an order at any time but does not allow the consumer to cancel without penalty may be unfair. The CMA is also concerned about clauses that limit liability for late or non-delivery. If a supplier fails to deliver heating oil on time, the consumer may suffer inconvenience and additional costs. A clause that caps the supplier's liability at a very low amount, or that excludes liability for certain types of loss, may be unfair. The CMA's guidance says that terms are more likely to be fair if they do not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault.

Force majeure clauses are also under scrutiny. These clauses are intended to excuse a party from performing its obligations when an unexpected event outside its control occurs. However, such clauses can be unfair if they are too broad or vague. The CMA's guidance states that terms are more likely to be fair if they cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, including its delivery agents. They should explain terms like force majeure plainly. They should not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault. They should also give the consumer notice plus a right to cancel without penalty before being affected. This means that if a supplier wants to rely on a force majeure clause to cancel an order, it should tell the consumer as soon as possible and allow them to cancel without penalty. If the clause does not do this, it may be unfair. The CMA has asked suppliers to review their terms, especially exclusion and limitation clauses. This includes force majeure clauses. Suppliers should ensure that their terms are fair and transparent, and that they do not seek to avoid their responsibilities to consumers.

What a fair disruption clause looks like

A fair disruption clause should be clear and specific. It should specify exactly when it applies. For example, it might say that the supplier will not be liable for delays caused by extreme weather, but only if the supplier has taken reasonable steps to avoid the delay. The clause should cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, including its delivery agents. This means that if a delivery agent fails to deliver on time, the supplier may be excused only if the failure was due to an event outside the supplier's control. The clause should explain terms like force majeure plainly. It should not use legal jargon that consumers cannot understand. The clause should not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault. If the supplier is at fault for a delay or non-delivery, the consumer should be entitled to compensation. The clause should give the consumer notice plus a right to cancel without penalty before being affected. This means that if a disruption occurs, the supplier should inform the consumer promptly and allow them to cancel the order without penalty if they wish. The CMA's guidance provides examples of fair clauses. For instance, a clause that says the supplier will not be liable for delays caused by events outside its control, but that it will inform the consumer and allow cancellation without penalty, is more likely to be fair.

Suppliers should also ensure that their terms are transparent. This means using plain, intelligible language. Terms should be legible and logically organised under clear headings. Onerous or unusual terms should be given appropriate emphasis. For example, a clause that limits liability should be highlighted, not hidden in small print. The CMA's open letter reminds suppliers of these requirements. It asks them to review their terms to ensure that they comply with the law. The CMA is particularly concerned about clauses that exclude or limit liability for late or non-delivery. Such clauses are less likely to be fair if they exclude all liability for non-performance or delay, whether or not the supplier is at fault. They are also less likely to be fair if they let the supplier choose whether to perform while the consumer remains bound. The CMA's guidance states that terms are more likely to be fair if they specify exactly when they apply, cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, explain terms like force majeure plainly, do not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault, and give the consumer notice plus a right to cancel without penalty before being affected.

What households can do if an order is cancelled

If a heating oil supplier cancels an order, the consumer may have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If the cancellation is due to an unfair term, that term is not binding on the consumer. This means that the supplier cannot rely on it to avoid liability. The consumer may be entitled to a refund or compensation. The CMA secured voluntary compensation from suppliers after finding that hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site were affected. This shows that compensation is possible. If a consumer believes that they have been treated unfairly, they can complain to the supplier. If the complaint is not resolved, they can contact the CMA or Trading Standards. The CMA and Trading Standards can take enforcement action against suppliers that use unfair terms. This can lead to financial penalties. Consumers can also seek advice from Citizens Advice or other consumer organisations. It is important to keep records of orders, cancellations, and any communications with the supplier. This will help if a complaint is made. The CMA's open letter is intended to remind suppliers of their obligations. It is not a substitute for individual action, but it may help to prevent future problems.

Consumers should also be aware that they may have rights under other laws. For example, if a supplier takes payment for an order and then cancels it, the consumer may be entitled to a refund under the Consumer Contracts Regulations. If the supplier fails to deliver, the consumer may have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The CMA's guidance on unfair contract terms (CMA37) and consumer protection enforcement (CMA58) provides detailed information. Consumers can read these documents on the CMA's website. The CMA has asked all domestic heating oil suppliers to review their terms. This means that suppliers should be checking their contracts to ensure that they are fair. If a consumer is affected by a cancellation, they should not assume that the supplier's terms are fair. They can challenge them. The CMA's action shows that it is willing to intervene to protect consumers. The voluntary compensation secured by the CMA is an example of what can be achieved. Consumers who are affected should consider making a complaint. They can also contact their local Trading Standards service. The CMA and Trading Standards share enforcement powers, so either can take action.

What happens next for suppliers

The CMA has asked all domestic heating oil suppliers to review their terms. This includes checking that any clauses about cancellations, delays, and force majeure are fair and transparent. Suppliers should ensure that their terms comply with Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They should also take account of the CMA's guidance in CMA37 and CMA58. The CMA will monitor the market to see how suppliers respond. If it finds that suppliers are using unfair terms, it can take enforcement action. This can lead to financial penalties. The CMA can also seek undertakings from suppliers to change their terms. If a supplier refuses to change unfair terms, the CMA can apply to the court for an injunction. The CMA's action is part of its broader work to protect consumers in essential markets. Heating oil is an essential purchase for around 1.7 million UK households that are off the gas grid. These households often order by the tank, and they may be vulnerable to sudden price increases and supply disruptions. The CMA's open letter is intended to ensure that suppliers treat these consumers fairly. The CMA has made clear that it will not hesitate to act if it finds unfair terms. Suppliers should therefore review their terms carefully and make any necessary changes.

The CMA's intervention follows a period of disruption in the heating oil market. The conflict in the Middle East led to a surge in prices and demand. Some suppliers cancelled orders, leaving customers without heating oil. The CMA secured voluntary compensation for hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site. The open letter is a warning to suppliers that they must not use unfair terms to avoid their responsibilities. The CMA's guidance states that terms excluding liability are less likely to be fair if they exclude all liability for non-performance or delay, whether or not the supplier is at fault. They are also less likely to be fair if they let the supplier choose whether to perform while the consumer remains bound. Terms are more likely to be fair if they specify exactly when they apply, cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, explain terms like force majeure plainly, do not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault, and give the consumer notice plus a right to cancel without penalty before being affected. Suppliers should use these principles when reviewing their terms. The CMA will continue to monitor the market and take action where necessary.

Related coverage on Kael Tripton: CMA Heating Oil Compensation: Who Gets Paid and How Much, UK Heating Oil: Why Millions Depend On It, What Must Change, Burnham Weighs Cutting VAT on Energy Bills to Save £130 a Year, Charity Energy Bills: The VAT Relief Many Charities Never Claim, BNPL Regulation Starts 15 July 2026: Your Complete Guide to New Buy Now Pay Later Consumer Rights.

Frequently asked questions

What did the CMA publish on 10 September 2026?

On 10 September 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority published an open letter to domestic heating oil suppliers. The letter reminds suppliers that terms and conditions in consumer contracts must be fair and transparent. It follows CMA intervention after some suppliers cancelled orders when heating oil prices and demand surged following the conflict in the Middle East. The CMA secured voluntary compensation from suppliers after finding hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site were affected. The CMA has asked all suppliers to review their terms, especially exclusion and limitation clauses.

Why is the CMA concerned about heating oil suppliers' terms?

The CMA is concerned that suppliers' contracts may already contain clauses limiting liability for late or non-delivery, or that suppliers may be redrafting terms to add disruption clauses. Such clauses can be unfair under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The CMA intervened after some suppliers cancelled orders when prices and demand surged. It secured voluntary compensation for hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site. The CMA wants to ensure that suppliers do not use unfair terms to avoid their responsibilities to consumers.

What does the Consumer Rights Act 2015 say about unfair terms?

Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 protects consumers from unfair contract terms and notices. It applies to written or verbal terms, negotiated or standard form, and to notices such as website announcements. Unfair terms are not binding on consumers. Suppliers cannot rely on them and may have to repay money taken under them. The CMA and Trading Standards can take enforcement action, which can lead to financial penalties. Terms must also be transparent: in plain, intelligible language, legible, logically organised under clear headings, with onerous or unusual terms given appropriate emphasis.

Which cancellation and force majeure clauses are likely to be unfair?

Terms excluding liability are less likely to be fair if they exclude all liability for non-performance or delay whether or not the supplier is at fault, or let the supplier choose whether to perform while the consumer stays bound. Force majeure clauses can be unfair if they are too broad or vague. Terms are more likely to be fair if they specify exactly when they apply, cover circumstances genuinely outside the supplier's control, explain terms like force majeure plainly, do not refuse compensation where the supplier is at fault, and give the consumer notice plus a right to cancel without penalty before being affected.

What can households do if their heating oil order is cancelled?

If a supplier cancels an order, the consumer may have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If the cancellation is due to an unfair term, that term is not binding, so the supplier cannot rely on it. The consumer may be entitled to a refund or compensation. The CMA secured voluntary compensation from suppliers after finding hundreds of customers who ordered through an intermediary site were affected. Consumers can complain to the supplier, and if unresolved, contact the CMA or Trading Standards. Keeping records of orders and communications will help.