Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Oakleafe Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B appointed Oakleafe to assist with an insurance claim for storm damage at her property in 2022. Although an interim payment was made in mid-2023, reinstatement work remained incomplete by end of 2024 with numerous problems. Mrs B complained that Oakleafe caused delays, provided poor communication, and failed to manage the claim effectively. Oakleafe claimed it was not responsible for contractor performance despite introducing them. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Oakleafe should have been more proactive during an 8-month delay period and should have provided clearer guidance to Mrs B, who was identified as vulnerable. Oakleafe was ordered to pay £750 compensation, arrange completion of works, pay 50% of damaged stored items, and provide written confirmation of outstanding work.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Oakleafe attempted to rely on contractual terms excluding liability for contractors' performance, the Ombudsman found this unfair given Oakleafe introduced the contractors, paid them, and had greater oversight than Mrs B. The firm's letter of engagement clearly stated it was responsible for all communications and payments. Given Mrs B's vulnerability and the significant 8-month delay with available funds, Oakleafe should have been more proactive in questioning delays and ensuring progress. The firm failed to adequately inform Mrs B of developments and did not clarify its role, which could have been easily misunderstood. This breached Principle 12 and PRIN 2A.5.8 of the Consumer Duty.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website