Wren Kitchens and Novuna finance

halfpint74

We purchased what was presented as Wren's premium kitchen range in February 2025, to be delivered and fitted in April 2025, at a cost of more than £15,000. We expected a premium product and a level of customer service to match. Instead, what followed has become one of the most stressful, exhausting and disappointing consumer experiences we have ever encountered.

Within a relatively short period, defects began appearing throughout the kitchen. Over time we identified warped and bowed doors, warped panels, defects within panels, worktop defects, appliance-related defects and numerous quality concerns. What should have been the centrepiece of our home instead became a constant source of frustration and worry.

Alongside the quality issues, we also discovered problems relating to the sales process itself. Wren later acknowledged that a "secret cupboard" had been sold to us when it should not have been. We also became increasingly concerned when items and protections that appeared within our contractual documentation were subsequently described as goodwill gestures when issues arose. In addition, we were informed that defects we had identified were being classified as wear and tear. This significantly undermined our confidence in both the product and the way our complaint was being handled.

Throughout the complaint we repeatedly requested that important discussions were confirmed in writing. We did this because we wanted a clear and accurate record of events and because we were receiving differing explanations regarding various aspects of the complaint. We felt it was important that everything was properly documented.

Matters escalated significantly on 26 January 2026 when the integrated hob catastrophically shattered. The incident resulted in a serious injury requiring hospital treatment and physiotherapy, and recovery is still ongoing. More than 21 weeks later, we still do not have a functioning hob. For over five months we have been unable to use a key part of the kitchen we paid for, causing significant disruption to our daily lives and family routine.

Following the hob failure, Wren sent a Field Installation Manager to inspect the kitchen. During the visit we specifically asked whether he was gas qualified and were informed that he was not. We were therefore extremely concerned that the individual sent to assess the aftermath of a catastrophic hob failure was not gas qualified and was unable to determine the cause of the failure.

During the inspection we were asked to sign documentation. We declined because we wanted the opportunity to review any findings before agreeing to them. Following the visit, a short PDF summary was produced and we were later informed by Wren that this formed part of the basis of their position regarding our complaint. We were advised that no significant defects had been identified and that any defects present were either acceptable or within Wren's tolerances, including an explanation that bowing of up to 3mm over a 1 metre length was considered acceptable.

What made this particularly difficult to understand was that our recollection of the conversation during the inspection was very different. During the visit, the Field Installation Manager made comments which suggested that some of the issues were not capable of being corrected through installation adjustments alone. We specifically recall being told words to the effect that there was "no joiner in the land who will line up this kitchen" and that he believed some of the bowing may have originated during storage or prior to manufacture. We subsequently challenged Wren regarding the differences between what we understood had been discussed during the visit and the position that was later communicated to us. This only added further confusion and further reduced our confidence in the way the issues were being assessed.

As the dispute continued, we escalated matters through the finance provider under a Section 75 claim.

Novuna initially informed us that they would arrange an independent inspection through Emmiera and that the cost of the inspection would be covered. We welcomed this as we had repeatedly stated that we were not opposed to independent scrutiny and simply wanted the issues assessed fairly.

However, after approximately six weeks of waiting and repeatedly chasing for updates, we were informed that the position had changed and that we would instead be responsible for obtaining and funding any inspection ourselves. Although we continued to be directed towards Emmiera, responsibility for arranging and paying for any inspection had effectively been transferred to us.

During this period we were also informed that independent evidence would be required. We challenged aspects of what we were being told and eventually provided extensive evidence ourselves, including 91 photographs, measurements, detailed explanations of the defects and a methodology document setting out our concerns.

Despite the volume of information provided, our evidence was rejected within approximately 48 hours.

The handling of the claim itself then became a further source of concern. After waiting approximately eight weeks for Novuna's final response to the Section 75 claim, we found ourselves having to raise a separate complaint regarding the way the matter had been handled.

That complaint was investigated internally by Novuna and ultimately resulted in them acknowledging failings within their own complaint handling process. Whilst we welcomed the fact thatthese failings were eventually recognised, this required a furtherinvestigation and further delay whilst Novuna reviewed its own conduct. In the end, compensation of £150 was offered in recognition of those failings.

By this stage it was difficult not to feel frustrated. We had spent months gathering evidence, chasing responses, challenging inconsistencies and pursuing what we believed to be legitimate concerns, only to find ourselves having to complain about the way the complaint itself had been managed. The complaint process had effectively become part of the complaint.

What we found particularly surprising was that despite the purchase being funded through a regulated finance agreement and our complaint involving a Section 75 claim, neither Wren nor Novuna directed us towards the Financial Ombudsman Service, and instead we were repeatedly directed towards the Furniture Ombudsman. It was only through our own research and persistence that we ultimately escalated the matter to the Financial Ombudsman.

By this stage we felt we had exhausted every reasonable avenue available to us. We had spent months raising concerns, providing evidence, challenging inconsistencies and attempting to obtain a fair review of the issues we had identified.

It was only at that point that we took the decision to commission truly independent expert evidence at our own expense.

We arranged for NEFF, the manufacturer of the hob, to attend and investigate the catastrophic glass failure. We found the engineer to be professional, knowledgeable and thorough throughout. Following their inspection, NEFF concluded that there was no impact damage, that the installation measurements were correct and that the hob failure was attributable to a defect within the glass itself.

We also commissioned Barrdale Furniture Inspections to carry out a full independent assessment of the kitchen. From the outset, Dale and his team were professional, courteous and thorough. The inspection was carried out independently, the report was produced promptly and the findings were clearly explained.

The findings themselves were extremely concerning. Barrdale identified multiple defects throughout the kitchen and concluded that the defects were attributable to manufacturing issues, that the units were not repairable and that the kitchen was not of satisfactory quality. The report also recommended a refund of the purchase price.

What makes this particularly disappointing is that both independent inspections closely reflected concerns that we had been raising for months. Both organisations approached the matter professionally, independently and without any apparent preconceptions. The contrast between their findings and the responses we had received previously only reinforced our concerns.

The reason we remained relatively quiet publicly throughout much of this process was because we wanted the facts to speak for themselves. We wanted evidence before drawing conclusions. Having now obtained two independent inspections which support concerns we have been raising for many months, we feel it is important that other consumers are aware of our experience and can make informed decisions for themselves.

This dispute has now consumed more than seven months of our lives. We have spent countless hours gathering evidence, taking photographs, measuring defects, reviewing contracts, responding to correspondence, arranging inspections and pursuing complaints. Throughout this entire period, Novuna have continued to take monthly instalments from our bank account without ever offering a payment break, despite being fully aware of the ongoing dispute and the fact that we have been left without a functioning hob for over five months. We have effectively been paying for a kitchen that we have been unable to use to its full extent. What should have been an enjoyable investment in our home has instead become an ongoing source of stress, anxiety and frustration.

For many months we explained that we had lost confidence in the kitchen. Following the findings of both independent inspections, that loss of confidence now extends far beyond the kitchen itself. We have lost confidence in the products supplied, confidence in the after-sales support provided and confidence in the way our concerns were assessed throughout the finance dispute process.

As ordinary consumers dealing with a major national retailer and its finance provider, there were times when we genuinely felt overwhelmed by the process. There were occasions when it felt as though we were expected to simply accept the situation and move on despite the evidence we continued to provide. The only reason we are now in possession of two independent reports supporting our concerns is because we refused to do so.

Everyone's experience will be different. However, based on our experience, we would strongly urge prospective customers to look far beyond the showroom experience and think very carefully about how issues may be handled if significant problems arise after installation. Our experience has shown that when things go wrong, the process can become prolonged, complex and extremely difficult to resolve, even when substantial evidence is provided. We would encourage anyone considering a purchase to fully understand not just the product being sold, but the level of support, accountability and resolution they can realistically expect if things do not go as planned.

All documentation is now submitted and we are still waiting a response from Novuna. We have now been without a functioning kitchen since Jan 26th 2026. I will update further when we have more news

visidigi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6673621/wren-kitchens-and-novuna-finance

Welcome to the forum, but no way anyone is going to read through all that.

Here's a factual version without the emotion.

We purchased what was presented as Wren's premium kitchen range in February 2025, to be delivered and fitted in April 2025, at a cost of more than £15,000.

On 26 January 2026 when the integrated hob catastrophically shattered.

Following the hob failure, Wren sent a Field Installation Manager to inspect the kitchen.

We were advised that no significant defects had been identified and that any defects present were either acceptable or within Wren's tolerances.

We subsequently challenged Wren.

As the dispute continued, we escalated matters through the finance provider under a Section 75 claim.

We were informed that the position had changed and that we would instead be responsible for obtaining and funding any inspection ourselves.

During this period we were also informed that independent evidence would be required.

Despite the volume of information provided, our evidence was rejected within approximately 48 hours.

After waiting approximately eight weeks for Novuna's final response to the Section 75 claim.

We arranged for NEFF, the manufacturer of the hob, NEFF concluded that the hob failure was attributable to a defect within the glass itself.

We also commissioned Barrdale Furniture Inspections to carry out a full independent assessment of the kitchen. Finding the kitchen was not of satisfactory quality. The report also recommended a refund of the purchase price.

What have the finance and wren said to these findings?

Woodstok2000

TL:DR

Wren are awful (trustpilot rating is ok, but reviews generally note they are terrible when things go wrong). Novuna are awful (trustpilot rating of ~2). If you are considering a major purchase, look at the level of support, accountability and resolution you can realistically expect if things do not go as planned.

Jemma01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044905#Comment_82044905

trust pilot removes reviews, they tried to remove mine because I named the awful designer, but I reinstated my review without the name. Most ppl wouldn't notice the removal of their reviews despite the email. Wren reports every negative review in the hope ppl won't return.

The quality of the kitchen is awful, I regret it so bad. 17k+ what a waste of money.

Woodstok2000

Why didnt you commission the independent evidence when Novuna advised it was needed, instead of waiting until after all the complaints were closed? Have they now responded to the two independent reports?

eskbanker

What we found particularly surprising was that despite the purchase being funded through a regulated finance agreement and our complaint involving a Section 75 claim, neither Wren nor Novuna directed us towards the Financial Ombudsman Service, and instead we were repeatedly directed towards the Furniture Ombudsman. It was only through our own research and persistence that we ultimately escalated the matter to the Financial Ombudsman.

When complaining to a regulated financial business, they are obliged to advise you of your right to escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service when they issue their final response (but not before that) - it may be in there somewhere but have reached the final response stage with one or both yet?

It's only regulated activities that can be escalated in that way too, so it may be that Wren's role doesn't fit that anyway.

Also, FOS have previously rejected complaints about complaint handling as being out of scope (complaint handling not being a regulated activity as such), so you wouldn't have had the option of escalating your second Novuna complaint to FOS if you were unhappy with their response to that…

Ectophile

Not actually related to the finance, but are you aware that if you are injured by faulty goods, then you can make a claim against either the retailer, or the manufacturer/importer? So you could claim compensation for the injuries from the hob.

You have 3 years to make a claim.

Aylesbury_Duck

Wren has a premium range? Wow.

An electric double hob can be bought for less than £50. That would have been a sensible purchase rather than suffer months of inconvenience. It would have been a reasonable sum to reclaim, too.

Hehaw2025

Thanks for the write up, read the full thing as well.

Our neighbour got a Wren kitchen and has so many issues with hers that I think she has gotten to the ‘give up, and get on with it’ phase.

We are due a new kitchen in the next 2-3 years so will make sure to avoid Wren like the plague.

halfpint74

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044933#Comment_82044933

We didn't commission them straight away because Novuna initially said they would cover the cost and then back tracked 8 weeks later. At this point we had been without a hob for so long we decided to follow the correct procedure. Just to add to this the hob was left in situ for almost 5 weeks with shards of glass all over and continually breaking off. They told us after 8 weeks we needed to foot the bill ourselves because we have not reported the issue within a 6 month period to which I replied it had not exploded within the 6 month period so how was I supposed to report it. (We also believed that with joint liability the finance company would do a thorough job - sadly this is not the case). We have now sent the evidence to Novuna and the Financial Ombudsman we are awaiting responses.

halfpint74

What we found particularly surprising was that despite the purchase being funded through a regulated finance agreement and our complaint involving a Section 75 claim, neither Wren nor Novuna directed us towards the Financial Ombudsman Service, and instead we were repeatedly directed towards the Furniture Ombudsman. It was only through our own research and persistence that we ultimately escalated the matter to the Financial Ombudsman.

When complaining to a regulated financial business, they are obliged to advise you of your right to escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service when they issue their final response (but not before that) - it may be in there somewhere but have reached the final response stage with one or both yet?

It's only regulated activities that can be escalated in that way too, so it may be that Wren's role doesn't fit that anyway.

Also, FOS have previously rejected complaints about complaint handling as being out of scope (complaint handling not being a regulated activity as such), so you wouldn't have had the option of escalating your second Novuna complaint to FOS if you were unhappy with their response to that…

They have never pointed us to the Financial Ombudsman only the Furniture Ombudsman -