Upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Oakleafe Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs P's home was damaged by fire on 11 April 2023, and they appointed Oakleafe as their loss assessor on 18 April 2023. The reinstatement claim was complex and protracted, with repair scheme agreement delayed until August 2023 and works not completing until April 2024. Mr and Mrs P complained about poor communication, withholding of funds, and poor work. The ombudsman found that while Oakleafe was not responsible for managing the reinstatement contractors, it failed in its duty to adequately manage alternative accommodation arrangements, including failing to renegotiate the monthly AA basis when delays became apparent, failing to ensure timely payment of approximately £4,000 in AA costs (delayed by approximately two weeks), and critically, failing to request emergency accommodation when the boiler failed in February 2024, leaving the family without heating and hot water. The ombudsman also found the Terms of Business lacked clarity about the scope of services. Oakleafe was ordered to pay a disturbance allowance for the uninhabitable period, interest on that amount, and £750 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Oakleafe's Terms of Business stated it would 'manage, calculate, negotiate & conclude' the claim, this language lacked clarity about the actual scope of services, creating unreasonable expectations in Mr and Mrs P. Although Oakleafe's primary role was to negotiate with the insurer rather than manage reinstatement works directly, it failed in its duty to manage AA arrangements adequately. Specifically, it should have renegotiated the monthly AA basis with the insurer by July 2023 when delays became apparent, should have ensured timely payment of AA costs (the £4,000 payment was delayed approximately two weeks), and critically, should have requested emergency AA when the boiler failed in February 2024, leaving the home uninhabitable. The ombudsman determined that Oakleafe's dismissive response to the contractor's payment concerns in February 2024 was unhelpful and that as the party dealing with the insurer, it was uniquely positioned to manage these issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website