FENSA Guarantee - Not what you May Think

pks1702

I pass on this salutary tale to anyone who thinks FENSA Certification gives peace of mind through an insurance backed guarantee.

My installer ceased trading, FENSA themselves identified a fault on an inspection but it turns out I am not covered under their definitions, something I was unaware of.

As background we renovated a large Black Barn in early 2023/24 which had a large fire and is on the edge of a conservation area. The windows needed be replaced due to fire damage to match those that had been in place but damaged.

The installation was large with 15 windows (two floor to ceiling on the upper floor) two doors and three sets of ‘French’ windows. The amount involved was material, so we split the job into two parts and had the downstairs completed first which not only mitigated the risk but allowed us to see the quality of the installers work. All went well and as a second part the upstairs was completed, however it was becoming obvious the installer was having issues. As a relatively small business his two main employees were ‘poached’ by a rival and the final parts of the install took longer than it should have as a sub-contractor finished off some minor work (trickle vents etc).

We had a call from FENSA some months later to say our install had been selected for an inspection, unfortunately I was on holiday and by the time I returned and called FENSA the allocation for our area had been fulfilled but they would contact us on the next allocation. This happened some months later and the Inspector noted that one of the double height windows although double glazed and toughened did not carry a Kite Mark and therefore did not conform to building regulations, he advised me to contact the company and get them to replace as it was an upper floor to ceiling window it was urgent.

I contacted the company to no avail, phones were not answered emails not replied to. In desperation I contacted on of the original fitters who told me the company had gone out of business. This was clearly concerning but I had my FENSA guarantee to cover me – how very wrong this perception proved to be.

I made a claim with Installsure one of FENSA insurers and was shocked to have my application rejected on the basis that my claim did not qualify as the company was technically still trading but subject to a winding up order and therefore my claim could not be considered. I looked on companies’ house to see there was an application for the company to be struck off effective in one days’ time, so I waited and resubmitted my claim.

After a couple of weeks, I received a rejection of my claim again as the company even though now companies house recorded the company as ceased trading and was dissolved. To add insult to injury FENSA contacted me to unhelpful tell me my installation was non-compliant and a safety issue as it was a floor to ceiling window therefore they would need to report it to the local authority -how on earth does this help me? The relented as I was going through the complaints procedure. I have found FENSA singularly unhelpful and toothless, why such stall is set by them I really don’t know.

The key point I and maybe many people will not be aware of is the FENSA definitions of when you are able to claim, as usual this is buried in the small print. This states that the company must legally declared insolvent. In my case as the company had lost its workers and had decided to cease trading, I am not covered even though I have an insurance backed guarantee which I have paid for within the cost of my installation

This is something I was not aware of and certainty FENSA don’t make any qualifying statement to this effect on their website, it is sharp practice.

I appealed the outcome but just got a repeat of the original decision.

I complained direct to FENSA who said they just administered the scheme and had no jurisdiction over the insurers.

Consequently, we have a scheme that will only cover faulty work etc if a company legally is insolvent. Imagine you have work done by a company who after a few years decide to cease trading and you find a fault you are not covered even though you have a FENSA insurance backed guarantee.

The FENSA scheme to me is not fit for purpose and at least FENSA should be upfront that you are not covered unless the business you select is legally insolvent, their Website certainly does not outline this.

 

 

Mr.Generous

Sounds like the only problem is the low level glass needs to be toughened units, price up new sealed units I suppose. Everybody loves FENSA on here, always going on about it on house sales. Not worth much when push comes to shove. Thanks for sharing.

pks1702

Mr.Generous said:

Sounds like the only problem is the low level glass needs to be toughened units, price up new sealed units I suppose. Everybody loves FENSA on here, always going on about it on house sales. Not worth much when push comes to shove. Thanks for sharing.

Problem is it is a floor to ceiling window and 2.5 metres wide, so not an insignificant cost.

FENSA hide behind 'the dispute is with their insurers, we just administer the scheme' even though they must accredit the insurer one would think. To add insult to injury they keep hassling me asking has the issue been resolved or they will need to inform the local authority.

Another organisation not fit for purpose and not telling all the truth in there advertising.

ComicGeek

Did you know that FENSA is owned by the Glass and Glazing Federation? RISA, who undertake the inspections on behalf of FENSA, is also owned by GGF....

Did you also know that Installsure (the trading name of GGFi Ltd), is also a wholly owned subsidiary of the GGF Group 

This is typical in the construction industry. Of course they aren't going to take action against their own members, who pay for membership of both the GGF and FENSA. 

They pretend to provide some iota of self policing to prevent the government from taking any serious action, but the whole system is a disgrace.

Albermarle

In my job I supplied raw materials to companies manufacturing the extruded uPVC profiles, which are then used to make the window frames.
I can only say that they were ( mainly anyway) very quality conscious, and demanding top quality products from their  suppliers. Any slight change in shade or minor contamination was a reject.
They also made a big effort to train their customers, many of whom were the local fabricators and installers.
They had minimum 10 year guarantees.

So as said it is not good to be marking your own homework, but it is not generally a cowboy business, although a few dodgy local operators probably can let the side down a bit.

ComicGeek

Albermarle said:

In my job I supplied raw materials to companies manufacturing the extruded uPVC profiles, which are then used to make the window frames.
I can only say that they were ( mainly anyway) very quality conscious, and demanding top quality products from their  suppliers. Any slight change in shade or minor contamination was a reject.
They also made a big effort to train their customers, many of whom were the local fabricators and installers.
They had minimum 10 year guarantees.

So as said it is not good to be marking your own homework, but it is not generally a cowboy business, although a few dodgy local operators probably can let the side down a bit.

I don't disagree with you that generally manufacturers and installers do a good job - but it's wrong that the competent person scheme, the 'independent' inspectors AND the insurers are all owned by the same group, that's clearly a conflict of interest.

Most of these accreditation bodies and competent person schemes just create reams of paperwork and admin for those companies/installers that already do a good job - the cowboy operators simply bypass them, and nothing happens...

I spend about 5% of my working hours completing audits on various schemes, and then correcting the inexperienced auditors when they get things wrong, and then undertaking days of compulsory training/CPD each year. Just such a meaningless system.