When WiFi Turns Toxic: How Kerry's home was contaminated by a faulty broadband device

When Kerry got in touch with The Complainer asking for advice, her story immediately stood out. What she experienced with a Virgin Media WiFi pod was not just a bit of faulty tech but a deeply unsettling experience.

After returning a pod that appeared to be overheating, Kerry was sent a replacement. But the new device triggered something far more alarming: releasing a fine layer of soot that spread throughout the entire house, settling on walls, ceilings, carpets, furniture, and soft furnishings.

The mysterious residue caused thousands of pounds’ worth of damage to Kerry’s newly decorated home. But beyond the financial cost, the incident took a heavy toll on the mental and physical wellbeing of her whole family, including Oscar, their 14-year-old dog, whose health was affected during the disruption and stress that followed.

Her case highlights both the hidden risks of bringing new technologies into our homes and what can happen when companies resist taking responsibility.

This is Kerry’s story…

Our broadband supplier, Virgin Media, installed WiFi pods in our home as part of our broadband service. They are supposed to boost the WiFi signal across our home to ensure that we can get the best possible connection. Almost immediately there were issues: the pods seemed to be overheating during use. We checked that it wasn’t an electrical fault with our sockets and then immediately reported the problem to Virgin Media. They promptly issued £50 compensation and gave us a brand new replacement pod. All sorted… or so we thought.

About three weeks after the replacement pod had been installed, around mid-November 2025, we started to notice something extremely unnerving: a very fine layer of black soot-like residue that had spread across our entire home.

This strange soot was everywhere – we found it in every room and on multiple surfaces: the walls, the ceiling, the carpet, the UPVC frames, the furniture and soft furnishings, even the toilet seats!

Worryingly, he engineers were unable to explain what the residue actually was, why it was being released, or how it had spread so extensively throughout our entire living space…

We’d already observed that during normal use, the replacement pod also seemed to become excessively hot. But the discovery of this strange residue prompted us to look more closely. We found that there was actual heat damage – visible scorching, heat staining, and discolouration – on the three internal walls near where the pod had been installed.

Even though we didn’t know what it was, we were sure that this soot was being released by the pods. After first reporting the issue to Virgin Media via WhatsApp, two engineers visited. Both engineers confirmed that the soot had originated from the WiFi pod. But worryingly, the engineers were unable to explain what the residue actually was, why it was being released, or how it had spread so extensively throughout our entire living space. This lack of explanation only heightened our concern.

After the engineers visited, the WiFi pods were removed and submitted to Trading Standards for review due to potential safety concerns. Virgin Media offered us a replacement pod – we obviously refused, now seriously concerned for our health and the safety of our home!

Given the unnerving nature of the soot, an unknown, potentially hazardous substance, we expected prompt action with clear communication and accountability. We had no reason to expect anything less than a swift resolution that reflected the actual damage caused by the pod and costs incurred by us. After all, the damage it created was extensive: one of the carpets was completely ruined, the walls and ceiling of multiple rooms needed repainting, and all of our soft furnishings needed cleaning. Yet the reality was a slow, defensive, and exhausting process.

To our total dismay, Virgin repeatedly questioned their liability for the damage caused by the replacement pod…

After first reporting the issue, we were passed to the executive team. They were incredibly slow to respond to our complaint. When they did reply, we were repeatedly asked to provide the same information over and over again. To our total dismay, Virgin repeatedly questioned their liability for the damage caused by the replacement pod. They offered no clear reasons beyond suggesting they could not confirm responsibility for the wider damage, despite engineers confirming the source.

While we had received compensation for the first pod – £50 – this came nowhere close to covering the damage caused by the replacement.

Our costs were significant: the confirmed costs to date total £2,148.50. The burn and heat damage to three internal walls required redecoration at a cost of £990 and three visibly marked electrical sockets needed replacement at £16.50. We also had to get an extensive deep clean of the whole house, including walls and ceiling, costing £550. Carpet damage and marking required full replacement at £390, followed by a £25 charge to rehang a door after the new carpet was fitted. Other contaminated items included a washing basket (£10), two air purifier filters (£98), a Kallax shelving unit affected by soot marks (£29), and three toilet seats that required replacement (£75). On top of this is all the cleaning products, the time it took to clean the soft furnishings and household appliances.

The stress and disruption has been intense – causing many sleepless nights and ongoing anxiety about safety in our own home.

Money aside, the whole incident has consumed immense amounts of time and energy: from documenting the damage and cleaning our belongings to dealing with the stress and worry it has caused.

The stress and disruption has been intense – causing many sleepless nights and ongoing anxiety about safety in our own home. Our dog, Oscar, who is 14 years old, blind, and diabetic, was particularly affected by the heat and disruption – his blood sugar levels rose dangerously high, and on advice from our vets, we had to do hourly checks, pricking his ears to monitor levels, to ensure he remained stable. This process was stressful for both him and our family and added significant emotional strain.

All in all, the whole situation has left a lasting sense of unease for all of us. We trusted that the equipment installed by a major broadband provider would be safe, tested, and supported if something went wrong. Instead, we have been left to deal with the consequences largely on our own.

The complaint process felt deliberately opaque and exhausting.

We feel deeply let down by Virgin Media. First, by the complete lack of practical support offered to help clean our home after it was contaminated. Second, by their repeated attempts to deflect responsibility, often offering contradictory or misleading information about liability and next steps. At different points we were told the matter would be escalated, then later informed that no such escalation had taken place. On one occasion we were advised to obtain quotes for cleaning and repairs, only to later be told that Virgin Media could not absorb any of the costs regardless. The complaint process felt deliberately opaque and exhausting.

Despite the seriousness of the safety concerns and the clear physical damage caused by the WiFi pod, we have received no compensation beyond the £50 issued for the first faulty device. After repeatedly requesting and receiving our cleaning and repair quotes, Virgin Media contacted us shortly before Christmas to say they would not cover the costs and would instead refer the matter to their legal team.

To date, we have still not been compensated. We have since cancelled our Virgin Media services, effective 14 January 2026, because we simply could not risk another incident. What should have been a straightforward resolution to a defective product has instead become a prolonged, stressful ordeal that continues to hang over our family.

What happens when home tech goes wrong

Kerry’s experience is not just an isolated complaint about a faulty product: it raises serious questions about how emerging consumer technologies are tested, monitored, and supported once they enter our homes.

WiFi pods, smart hubs, boosters, and other “plug-and-play” devices are increasingly marketed as safe, low-risk conveniences. Consumers are encouraged to install them quickly and trust that they will operate invisibly in the background. But when something goes wrong, the consequences can be immediate, invasive, and deeply unsettling.

Kerry’s case also highlights a troubling imbalance of power between large service providers and individual customers. When a product fails catastrophically, consumers are often expected to shoulder the burden of proof, documentation, and persistence – even when company engineers themselves acknowledge the source of the problem. Delays, repeated requests for the same information, and refusals to accept liability can wear people down, particularly when they are already dealing with damage, health concerns, and emotional distress. For many households, the sheer effort required to challenge a decision becomes a deterrent to justice.

Finally, Kerry’s story serves as a reminder that accountability should not stop at replacement hardware or token compensation. When technology causes harm, whether to property, wellbeing, or peace of mind, companies must take responsibility in a way that reflects the real impact on people’s lives. As more devices enter our homes under the promise of convenience and connectivity, consumers deserve transparency, swift action, and meaningful redress when things go wrong.

With Resolver Stories you can read real experiences of people fighting for fairness and share your own. Whether you scored a big win or are stuck in a never-ending nightmare, we want to hear from you!