Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Oakleafe Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M engaged Oakleafe in January 2025 to assist with a home insurance claim following flood damage. Oakleafe arranged contractors to carry out works, but when Mrs M raised concerns about the work in March 2025, Oakleafe directed her to contact the contractors directly. Mrs M complained that Oakleafe's website promised to handle everything including contractor negotiations, creating an expectation that contradicted what she was told. The ombudsman found Oakleafe was not responsible for the contractor's actions due to contractual terms, but upheld the complaint in part due to poor communication. Oakleafe was ordered to pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience, but Mrs M's requests for fee waiver and broader remedies were rejected.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Oakleafe was not responsible for R's actions due to the contractual terms making R Mrs M's direct agent, Oakleafe's communication was poor and misleading. The website marketing promised to handle everything including contractor negotiations, yet Oakleafe directed Mrs M to contact R directly when she raised concerns. This created a reasonable expectation that contradicted what Mrs M was subsequently told. The ombudsman determined £100 compensation was appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by this poor communication, but rejected Mrs M's other requests including waiver of cancellation fees and broader findings about corporate identity issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website