The Furniture & Home Improvement Ombudsman Opiniones 

The furniture Ombudsman is funded by the members, i.e. the company you’re complaining about, so this Ombudsman, which is not a Government agency, will ALWAYS find in favour of it’s member who pay their, they will NEVER find for you the complainant.

I complained against Oak Tree Mobility about a bath lift. The bathlift had pulled itself away from the wall when my mother was using it. She has dementia, and forgets to release the button. The law says that any device used by the elderly must be made in a way where it has safety devices to not cause injury. I had phone recordings of Oak Tree saying it doesn’t have safety devices fitted, they also fitted it incorrectly in the first place. An independant engineer said it has to be fitted with a backing plate to stop moisture getting into the wall, it wasn’t fitted with a plate. Oak Tree also said the device is not suitable for people with dementia, again said on recording. My mom had dementia when they sold it to her. I had so much overwhelming evidence against Oak Tree it was beyond belief, and still they found in Oak Tree’s favour who had no defense whatsoever. Oak Tree said I had tried to reattach the lift with exoanding bolts which was a complete lie, and even if I had, it still meant it came away from the wall, or why would I have tried to re-attach it.

A complete and utter joke of a service, they are not trained investigators, and they have no idea about evidence. I’ve spoken to a solicitor who basically laughed when I said they had found in Oak Trees favour.

Don’t waste your time with this incompetent, biased, and corrupt organisation. Speak to a solicitor.

As to the ‘standard’ response… absolute rubbish!

Evidence I provided:

I sent you photographs of the lift hanging off the wall, phone recordings with the staff saying there were no safety devices fitted to the lift. Phone recordings of the staff saying it wasn’t suitable for people with dementia. The EU law stating that any devices for use by the elderly must be fitted with safety devices. An independant engineers report saying that moisture had got into the wall because the lift wasn’t fitted correctly in the first place. An independant engineers report saying the wrong fittings had been used to fit the lift.

Evidence from Oak Tree:

Oak tree said I’d tried to refit the lift myself when it came away from the wall, that was it. They provided no proof of that whatsoever, they just said I had done it which was an outright lie, I hadn’t touched it. And if I had tried to refit it, surely that proves it came away from the wall… which is even more evidence that it wasn’t fitted properly in the first place.

But you still found in favour of Oak Tree! Tell me again about how you look at the evidence!

Keep finding in favour of appalling companies who pay you a membership fee. Companies with sub-standard products who are putting elderly people in danger! You must be so proud of the work you do!

Your response is as much of a joke as your company is!

Ordered sofa and chairs from Furniture Village, not cheap paying £3500 in total. Also purchased a care package £250. After 3 years the cream suit started to tarnish and brown patches started to appear. Care package providers stated that it was colour transfer which is not covered. Furniture Village wouldn't even visit to assess they just said case closed. Involved the Furniture Ombudsman who took up our case and managed to get a refund and returned the faulty goods. Have now ordered a suite from DFS who we know be reputable having dealt with them before. I would strongly advise anyone not to buy from Furniture Village.

I made a complaint against SCS regarding the bodged repair attempt to a faulty chair which had developed a large delve in the seat area after only seven months.
They didn’t even read the complaint, they just said the chair didn’t have a fault because the delve was due to the settlement of the foam and closed the case.
My complaint wasn’t regarding the initial fault, but the attempted repair which left the chair in a worse state.
I tried telling them this but I was just ignored.
The Furniture & Home Improvement Ombudsman need to be investigated, they are obviously not doing the job they are suppose to do, especially when it comes to SCS.

Just wish I had read reviews before wasting my time with ombudsman. The dispute is cut and dry faulty goods from John Lewis with a 10 yr guarantee which they refused to honour. At first the ombudsman said they would take
on my case. However within days they said closing the case as john lewis not affiliated with them !!!! Anyone thinking of using the ombudsman read all the reviews first and then decide

Had no joy with SCS regarding sofa complaint so went to the furniture ombudsman thinking they were impartial but without them actually checking the problem they went off the reports SCS had received from the company they use for repairs how can an independent company like the ombudsman go of them without checking they are correct. Don't expect much from the ombudsman has they are funded by the retailers check there reviews on line the proof is there.

The FHIO are not actually an independent ombudsman who provides impartial advice. Their funding comes from the business themselves. FHIO are in a conflicting role and should have never been established as an ombudsman. I stumbled on this fact, when I found it odd, that Wickes were promoting to speak to FHIO in every communication I had we them from the start and they promote them on their website. Who promotes to escalate further and especially externally??? Then I saw all the negative reviews on the internet. Takes away a consumers rights to impartial advice.

We paid over £100 in early April for a virtual assessment that we were told would take 7-14 days to complete. As of 3 June, we are still waiting for the assessor’s report. Over the last seven weeks, we have emailed The Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman several times for an update. Each time, our email went unanswered.

We paid The Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman for a service they failed to provide. They have taken our money and ghosted us. If I could give them zero stars, I would.

Update: After writing this review and phoning the Ombudsman yet again, they finally deigned to send us the report ... which they had sat on for almost a month.

In bed acting in cahoots with their member companies, ombudsmen/women are totally disingenuous incompetent liars with no accountability whatsoever for their decisions.

The Furniture & Home Improvement Ombudsman (FHIO) is an allegedly independent body that falsely claims to allegedly resolve disputes between consumers and businesses in the furniture and home improvement sector.

Please note that many consumers have raised concerns about probable conflicts of interest due to the irrefutable funding and convenient relationship between the FHIO and its member businesses. For instance, many reviews indicate that the FHIO often sides with the company, suggesting an obvious conflict of interest given that the businesses fund the ombudsman.

The FHIO does not conduct full and thorough investigations and often backs the company's position, which is an irrefutable conflict of interest. This perception is further reinforced by the fact that businesses often advertise the FHIO as a complaint resolution avenue, indicating a partnership or close relationship...

Have an unresolved issue with Wickes bathroom installation so took dispute to the FHIO over a year ago. They took on the case and only heard Wickes side of events, which was totally inaccurate and without hearing any input from ourselves. Was told the person covering our case had left and it was now being handed to the lead ombudsman for review. Have constantly phoned and e-mailed them for updates but they refuse to respond. Useless!!

I submitted a complaint to the Furniture and Home Improvement Ombudsman (FHIO) after receiving a faulty furniture installation from Hammonds. Despite providing clear evidence — including photographs, written notice of rejection within 30 days, and a detailed account of poor service and misleading conduct from the retailer — the Ombudsman ruled largely in favour of the company.

Their decision ignored my legal right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to reject the goods. The installation was incomplete, damaged from delivery, and not fit for purpose — yet I was told I should allow remedial works instead of being issued a refund. I rejected the goods well within the legal time frame, but that was dismissed as "not giving them a chance to fix it."

The process felt biased and dismissive. I had documented everything, including the company lying about missed appointments, a door that wasn’t usable, and multiple serious issues — yet the Ombudsman downplayed the faults and offered a token amount of compensation.

I was left with no choice but to escalate the matter to the Small Claims Court. I honestly expected better from a service that claims to be free and impartial. I would advise anyone considering using FHIO to manage expectations — this service feels more aligned with protecting companies than consumers.

I also wasn’t updated for weeks yet upon speaking with Hammonds today who stated they were calling the FHIO to chase it up, it was suddenly assigned to an ombudsman and a decision made within hours. Coincidence? I think not!

I brought a complaint to FHIO regarding a cracked worktop from Magnet Kitchens — hoping for fair resolution. Unfortunately, FHIO completely failed in their duty of impartiality and consumer protection.

Despite presenting detailed evidence showing fabrication errors that breached the manufacturer’s own technical guidelines (Dekton cut-out spacing and corner radius), FHIO ignored this evidence in favour of a vague and speculative consultant opinion. Their final report misrepresented the tone of that report and gave conclusions that were unsupported by technical facts.

Even worse, I formally requested that the case be reassigned to a different ombudsman due to clear bias — that request was ignored, and the same adjudicator continued handling the decision. FHIO then misapplied consumer law, stating that a “supply-only” contract means the retailer (Magnet) has no liability — even when they arranged the installation through subcontractors.

When I filed a complaint about the handling of the case, I received a generic, uninvestigated reply weeks later that didn’t address any of the serious concerns I raised.

I trusted FHIO to provide an expert, neutral process — but what I received was biased, unaccountable, and in many ways, procedurally flawed. I have now had to escalate my case to court and report FHIO to CTSI and the Department for Business and Trade.

If this is the standard of ADR in the UK, it is not protecting consumers — it is protecting businesses.

Started a complaint against DFS the ombudsman stated £200 compensation I accepted but then waited over 28 days for the payment but nothing received so then made a complaint to the ombudsman and they said they would contact DFS but still nothing received from the ombudsman after 14 days. They are about much use as a chocolate fire guard.

Very disappointed by FHIO. They confirmed that initial checks indicate I have a case on 26th Feb 25. Since then I did follow up asking for an update twice. No reply.I complained and they finally replied. Not followed their own process, no proper investigation, just took the side of a corrupt company who pays their fee. Biased.How they claim to be an ombudsman when they don't bother to do their job?FHIO is not fit for purpose.

Complete waste of time using the furniture Ombudsman. They totally sided with Leekes. We raised an issue within 30 days complaining about the quality of the sofas especially the cushions on the three seater and quoted the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Leekes said that there was no manufacturing defect even though a cushion was to be replaced! Not sure what their definition is of a defect? Verbally told that there is an issue with the furniture by 2nd technician hence cushion replacement and Leather to be heated and stretched. With the impasse with Leekes (another story) and the so called independent reports saying NO MANUFACTURING DEFECTS!!!! and tried to resolve through the Ombudsman. They have just believed everything from Leekes and Ombudsman have not even sent anyone to look at the furniture to see. Also no appeals prodcedure to go through. They are a complete waste of time and money and Govenment should scrap them in favour of a completely independent and legally enforceable body.
I don't expect anyone at the Ombudsman to reply to this but I need to make everyone aware of how utterly useless they are.
Update 12062025
As a result of my SAR request to the Ombudsman I have found that one of the technical reports was actually a lie. This report stated that the age of furniture was wrong (their mistake) and hence why claim was rejected and not because there wasn't a fault! This was hidden from us by both Ombudsman and Leekes (who refused to send us the reports and we now know why). Whole thing is a debacle from beginning to end.

My experience with the ombudsman was a very good one. They took control of my issue straight away and got a resolution in my favour. I was getting nowhere with SCS regarding delivery of my sofas and wether they had even sent the correct one. The company wouldn't reply to messages I had sent, calls I had made, so I contacted the ombudsman. They looked at my complaint and thought I had a valid complaint. They got in touch with SCS for their side of the story. I was kept informed as to what was happening as soon as Hannah got any information. I was offered a refund which was a total joke so I didn't accept. SCS didn't do what was asked so Hannah found in my favour. Sofas went back and full refund issued.

I have worked with or dealt with many ombudsman, but the FHIO should not be allowed to call themselves as such. They do not complete full and thorough investigations, they side with the company (which is unsurprising considering they fund them, talk about conflict of interest). Don’t waste your time dealing with them, they are unhelpful and biased.

Contacted this company regarding a kitchen fitted by Wren who had unsafely installed electrical sockets and also removed and resupply gas fittings without being Gas Safe. Wren advertise this company to make a complaint to if you are not happy I think they must have some sort of partnership as this company take nothing on board what you tell them and back The company complaining about 100%. Don’t waste your time reporting anything to this company. They are totally useless and don’t listen to a thing you tell them.

Thank you our last resort was the ombudsman, and they came up trumps .We are to get a new mattress after phone calls ,shop calls,emails and even a mattress technician ,we were ignored and told no fault .Now thanks to the ombudsman a replacement.

Appalling service and it appears simpletons work there. Don’t bother complaining about DFS as they appear to have this so called ombudsman in their pockets. I’ve never dealt with such incompetence as is evident in this lot so if you expect them to be on the side of card working customers then think again. Useless.

They did not help me and seem oblivious to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to try a sofa out when it’s only available ONLINE and not in store. I spent 3 months partially disabled with extreme sciatica and having to take Naproxen and yet this lot seem to think that is acceptable and have given carte blanche DFS to sell what they want with no come back. As I previously said, USELESS!!!!!

I had a dispute with a furniture company who adamantly refused to refund me for a returned office chair on the basis that it was assembled. Samantha Harris from the Furniture Ombudsman brought this dispute to a very rapid resolution by contacting the furniture company and working through a resolution. Although I was not able to receive a full refund, I got back a significant partial refund. I am very happy with the speed and effectiveness with which the Furniture Ombudsman assisted me. Much appreciated.