My account of an unfinished window and door installation, the problems I found, and the compliance certificate and final guarantee I have not received.
We were having windows and doors replaced. T&K allowed seven days for the installation, starting on 30 October 2023. By November 2024, replacement and remedial work was still being arranged.
In January 2024, T&K asked me to write down the snagging items I had found. I went room by room and sent a list. For me, the problem was more than individual faults: there were repeated visits, gaps between them and no clear point when we could put the work behind us.
In August 2024, I wrote that our wider refurbishment had been on hold for months. When T&K declared the installation finished that November, I did not agree. My concern was straightforward: I wanted the work finished properly, the damage addressed and the paperwork clear.
Based on my experience and the correspondence reviewed up to 22 October 2026.
At T&K’s request, I emailed a room-by-room list containing 300-plus observations on 30 January 2024. None of the first-floor windows has been assessed externally because of the height. Both that original list and subsequent checks therefore leave a substantial area unassessed. Later concealed discoveries were additional to the list and came to light during general refurbishment, rather than a search for further defects.
The reviewed folder contains 161 emails sent by me and 159 received, including correspondence with T&K, advisers and the court. These are folder totals, not just emails exchanged directly with T&K.
I had put our general refurbishment on hold for more than two years because of the unfinished T&K installation. The concealed issues came to light when trims and sills were removed as part of that refurbishment—not to search for defects. The November 2023 photographs show work during installation. Select a photograph to enlarge it.
Each assessment separates the photographed condition, the relevant benchmark and the further check needed. Potential breaches are identified as concerns for investigation, not findings by an expert or the court.
England, with installation beginning in October 2023. The references use editions available at that time; project-specific commencement and transitional provisions still need confirming.
| Benchmark | What it addresses | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Insulation and draughtproofingBuilding Regulations / official guidance | Part L1(a); Approved Document L §§10.3 and 4.19 address replacement fittings, draughtproofing and heat loss at junctions. | Approved Document L (2021, with 2023 amendments), §10.3 and §4.19 |
| Weather resistanceBuilding Regulations / official guidance | Part C2; Approved Document C §5.29 addresses rain resistance at wall-to-frame joints. A visible crack needs checking to establish whether it compromises that function. | Approved Document C (2004, amended 2010/2013), §5.29 — rain resistance at frame joints |
| Materials and workmanshipLegal requirement / official guidance | Regulation 7(1) requires suitable materials, properly applied, and workmanlike execution. A cosmetic flaw alone does not establish failure of the regulatory function. | Regulation 7(1) — materials and workmanship Approved Document 7 (2013, amended 2018), regulation 7(1), §2 — official guidance |
| Perimeter sealingFENSA compliance guidance, July 2023 | Pages 14–15 cover continuous perimeter seals, sill joints, backing and drainage. These help assess whether a complete weather-resistant joint was installed. | FENSA Guide to Compliance, July 2023, printed pages 14–15 |
| Trims, joints and finishingGGF good-practice guidance, April 2016 | Sections 3.21–3.23 distinguish decorative trims from insulating fill and seals. Section 3.24 warns against sand-and-cement infill at the outer frame joint, subject to the stated steel-window exception. Sections 3.25–3.26 and Table 3 address agreed making good and final checks. | GGF installation guide, April 2016 — §§3.21–3.26 and Table 3 |
| Survey and installationBritish Standard / product instructions | BS 8213-4:2016 is a survey and installation code of practice. BSI’s scope has been checked; the full licensed text has not. Exact clause findings and tolerances need that text and the installed system’s instructions. | BS 8213-4:2016 — survey and installation code, BSI scope |
| Certification and notificationCompliance evidence | A competent person scheme is one route to Building Regulations compliance. Its certificate provides evidence of compliance. A certificate not supplied to the customer must be distinguished from proven absence of registration and from physical installation defects. | GOV.UK — competent person schemes and compliance certificates |
Approved Documents describe routes to meeting Building Regulations; other compliant solutions can exist. FENSA/GGF guidance and British Standards are distinct from legislation. Membership, contractual incorporation and manufacturer-specific requirements have not been assumed. Photographs after trim or sill removal need checking against undisturbed layers and any changes caused during removal. Foam is one possible insulating material; its absence alone is not a breach. No independent compliance finding has been obtained.
There was no insulation in this gap. I checked it directly after removing the trim and confirmed this with an endoscope-type camera.
Concern: My direct inspection and endoscope-camera check confirmed no insulation in this gap. On that inspection evidence, the uninsulated perimeter gap does not follow GGF §3.23 and raises a Part L concern about heat loss.
Check needed: Assess the joint’s thermal and air-sealing performance against Part L and the installation detail.
Sealing and insulation: GGF §3.23; ADL §§10.3, 4.19.
Removing the internal sill for an unrelated replacement exposed this uninsulated gap beneath the frame. I confirmed the absence of insulation directly and with an endoscope-type camera.
Concern: My direct and endoscope-camera inspections confirmed no insulation beneath the frame. On that inspection evidence, the uninsulated perimeter gap does not follow GGF §3.23. It raises a Part L concern about heat loss, and a Part C concern if the lower seal allows rain penetration.
Check needed: Assess the lower joint against ADL §§4.19 and 10.3, and establish whether the weather seal satisfies ADC §5.29. Packers alone are not a defect.
Thermal junction: ADL §§4.19, 10.3; moisture resistance: ADC §5.29; perimeter treatment: GGF §3.23 and FENSA pp.14–15.
Removing the trim revealed several strips or boards bridging the space between the bay-window frame and the existing surround, with foam visible alongside them. External cracking beside the bay adds to my concern about this junction.
Concern: The exposed junction and nearby external cracking warrant further investigation of fixing, support and joint performance. The photograph does not establish a structural failure or the cause of the cracking.
Check needed: Inspect both ends of the bay, its fixings, reinforcement and any load-bearing support. Compare survey and manufacturing dimensions with the intended junction detail and manufacturer’s instructions. Whether the same concealed arrangement exists at both ends remains to be established.
Bay support: GGF §§2.9 and 3.18; survey and sizing: §§2.16–2.18; trims and seals: §§3.21–3.23. FENSA July 2023, structure/bay windows, pp.6–9. BS 8213-4:2016 is a relevant installation code; a clause-specific finding requires the full text.
The trim fitted at this window was wider than the window frame. This photograph shows the junction after the trim was removed, with foam visible along the side and lower edge.
Concern: My concern at this window includes the oversized trim and its fit against the existing frame and surround. The photograph records the exposed junction after removal; the foam visible here does not resolve the trim-fit concern.
Check needed: Compare the trim and frame dimensions with the agreed survey and installation detail, and assess the perimeter seals separately. No universal maximum trim width is asserted.
Trim fit and finishing: GGF §§3.21, 3.25 and Table 3; underlying joint: §3.23.
A vertical crack runs through the external finish beside the bay-window frame. Alongside the concealed junction exposed inside, this is a concern requiring further investigation.
Concern: The cracking needs assessing alongside the exposed internal bay junction. Their proximity warrants investigation, but does not establish a common cause or structural movement.
Check needed: Inspect the crack, both bay ends and the support/fixing arrangement; distinguish finish shrinkage, joint failure and structural movement.
External making good and seals: GGF §§3.23–3.24.
The surface beside the frame is cracked and separated at the lower corner, where the reveal meets the sill.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Perimeter and sill-end sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
34 selected photographs. Six examples above; explore the remaining views by topic below.
There is no silicone seal around the outside of this window. A rough, differently finished strip remains beside the frame, with residue on the brick sill.
Concern: My inspection found no external silicone seal. This raises concern about rain penetration if no effective alternative perimeter sealing system is present.
Check needed: Further investigation should establish the complete external sealing detail, including beneath the sill, and whether any alternative system provides effective weather resistance. Identify the exposed infill material as part of that investigation.
Weather resistance: ADC §5.29; external perimeter and sill sealing: FENSA pp.14–15; joint treatment and making good: GGF §§3.22–3.24.
There is a visible break in the material above the frame corner. The photograph does not show the full depth of the joint.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Head/perimeter sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
White and green residue and disturbed surface coating are visible on the brick sill below the window.
Concern: Residue and disturbed surface coating are visible on the sill.
Check needed: Identify the material and establish responsibility and the agreed surface repair.
Clean-up and surface condition: GGF §§3.24–3.26.
There is no external seal around this window. The surface above and beside the frame also has a rough, differently finished strip.
Concern: My inspection found no external perimeter seal. The unsealed joint raises concern about rain penetration and air leakage.
Check needed: Further investigation should establish the full joint construction and assess the missing external seal against the weather-resistance requirements, including the head, sides and sill junctions. Identify the exposed infill material and its intended role.
Weather resistance: ADC §5.29; perimeter sealing: FENSA pp.14–15; joint treatment and making good: GGF §§3.22–3.24.
The material at the frame-to-wall junction is irregular, with a visible line of separation beside the sill end.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Perimeter and sill sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
Cracks and small openings are visible in the reveal finish beside the lower frame corner.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Perimeter sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
A vertical crack runs through the differently finished strip beside this frame.
Concern: The cracking beside the frame raises concern about movement and the durability of the joint.
Check needed: Identify the material and whether the crack affects the weather seal; distinguish render cracking from a failed seal.
External making good and seals: GGF §§3.23–3.24.
This close view shows a continuous rough strip between the frame and textured wall finish.
Concern: The rough infill needs identifying. A rigid-looking finish does not establish its composition or role.
Check needed: Check whether sand-and-cement was used within the frame joint, or whether this is adjacent render with a separate effective seal.
External making good: GGF §3.24.
This supporting angle shows the crack across the lower reveal and around the frame-to-sill junction.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Perimeter and sill-end sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
There is no external sealant at this junction, and a gap runs between the render and window frame along the top.
Concern: My inspection found no sealant and a gap along the top frame-to-render junction. This raises concern about rain penetration and air leakage.
Check needed: Further investigation should establish the complete head-joint construction and whether any separate sealing system provides effective weather resistance. Assess the gap and the perimeter seal along the top and at both corners.
Weather resistance: ADC §5.29; head and perimeter sealing: FENSA pp.14–15; sealant and joint treatment: GGF §§3.22–3.23.
A long crack is visible in the narrow strip beside the frame.
Concern: The cracking beside the frame raises concern about movement and the durability of the joint.
Check needed: Identify the material and whether the crack affects the weather seal; distinguish render cracking from a failed seal.
External making good and seals: GGF §§3.23–3.24.
This supporting angle shows cracking and a small opening in the material immediately above the frame junction.
Concern: The visible break could compromise weather resistance if it interrupts the working perimeter seal.
Check needed: Establish the full joint construction and whether a continuous effective seal exists behind the photographed surface.
Head and perimeter sealing: FENSA pp.14–15.
A narrow open edge and remnants of material are visible between the brickwork and frame.
Concern: The exposed edge raises a question about whether the perimeter seal is continuous.
Check needed: Confirm the opening’s location and the intended sealing detail; this photograph alone does not establish a Part L breach.
Joint filling and sealing: GGF §3.23.
A closer view shows foam behind the disturbed covering, alongside the existing moulded surround.
Concern: The built-up covering and exposed foam warrant checking separately from the underlying frame joint.
Check needed: Check support, trim fit and seal continuity. Visible foam alone does not demonstrate a complete compliant joint.
Trims and joint treatment: GGF §§3.21–3.23.
This supporting angle shows the separate white strips, visible screw heads and foam beside the older surround.
Concern: The built-up covering and exposed foam warrant checking separately from the underlying frame joint.
Check needed: Check support, trim fit and seal continuity. Visible foam alone does not demonstrate a complete compliant joint.
Trim fit and perimeter treatment: GGF §§3.21–3.23.
This close-up gives another view into the open section behind the removed trim. No insulation is apparent in this visible section.
Concern: The exposed void raises concern about missing insulation and air leakage at this junction.
Check needed: Inspect the retained joint layers and confirm whether an adequate insulating and air-sealing detail was present before trim removal.
Joint filling and sealing: GGF §3.23.
The lower surround has cracked finishes, exposed material and gaps beside the skirting. This is the finish I wanted put right.
Concern: The photographed finish is a matter for comparison with the agreed making-good work.
Check needed: Check the original condition, agreed scope and any later work.
Internal making good: GGF §3.25.
The covering has an uneven edge, with a raised, rippled bead of material beside the existing surround.
Concern: The photographed finish is a matter for comparison with the agreed making-good work.
Check needed: Check the original condition, agreed scope and any later work.
Trim fit and finishing: GGF §§3.21, 3.25.
There is damage to the tile and grout, alongside gaps and an uneven finish at the junction above the top row of tiles.
Concern: My concerns include damage to the tile and grout as well as the unfinished-looking junction. These are separate aspects of the making-good work requiring attention.
Check needed: Further investigation should establish the extent of tile and grout damage, the repair needed and responsibility against the agreed making-good scope.
Internal making good and final inspection: GGF §§3.25–3.26 and Table 3.
The trims at both sides and along the top were wider than the window frame. This view shows the lower part of the surround and the junction with the sill.
Concern: My concern is the fit of trims that extend beyond the frame at both sides and the top. This lower view gives supporting context; it does not show the whole top trim.
Check needed: Further investigation should compare the side and top trim dimensions with the frame, surrounding architrave and agreed installation detail, and establish the making-good work required.
Trim fit, internal making good and final inspection: GGF §§3.21, 3.25–3.26 and Table 3.
This window was removed and refitted three times, then replaced with a newly manufactured unit because of manufacturing and installation problems. The top trim raises my concern that the window may be too small for the opening. Cracking and an opening are also present near the upper corner.
Concern: The history of repeated refitting and replacement forms part of my account of this window. The top trim raises a separate question about frame height and the gap it covers; its presence alone does not establish incorrect sizing.
Check needed: Further investigation should compare the opening, frame and top-gap dimensions with the original survey, manufacturing and replacement orders, and manufacturer’s installation detail, including legitimate fitting and movement allowances. Review the refitting and replacement history alongside those records.
Survey measurements and manufacturing sizes: GGF §§2.16–2.18; trim fit and making good: §§3.21, 3.25. BS 8213-4:2016 is relevant to survey and installation; clause-specific findings require the full text.
The joint around the sill end is uneven, with a small opening where it meets the tiled surround.
Concern: The photographed finish is a matter for comparison with the agreed making-good work.
Check needed: Check the original condition, agreed scope and any later work.
Internal making good and agreed finishes: GGF §3.25.
This view records the broad white covering between the window frame and existing surround.
Concern: The broad covering needs comparing with the survey detail and existing surround.
Check needed: Measure the trim and check the agreed detail; a universal maximum trim width has not been established.
Trim fit: GGF §3.21. No maximum-width breach is inferred without dimensions and the installation detail.
The trim at this window is wider than the window frame. Beside the tiled surround, the edge also has an irregular bead and a small opening where the tile and wall finishes meet.
Concern: My concerns include trim wider than the window frame and the uneven junction beside the tiles. Both its fit and the making-good work require attention.
Check needed: Further investigation should compare the trim and frame dimensions with the surrounding finishes and agreed installation detail, and establish the work needed to make good the junction.
Trim fit, internal making good and final inspection: GGF §§3.21, 3.25–3.26 and Table 3.
Foam and disturbed plaster are visible beside the frame while installation was underway.
During installationConcern: This records the unfinished joint in November 2023.
Check needed: Check subsequent completion and sealing records. This photograph does not establish the finished installation’s compliance.
GGF §3.23 addresses joint filling and sealing. This installation-stage photograph does not establish how the joint was ultimately finished.
Daylight is visible through the exposed gap beside the frame while installation was underway.
During installationConcern: This records the unfinished joint in November 2023.
Check needed: Check subsequent completion and sealing records. This photograph does not establish the finished installation’s compliance.
GGF §3.23 addresses joint filling and sealing. This installation-stage photograph does not establish how the joint was ultimately finished.
This close view records the frame edges and black joint lines at the lower meeting point.
Concern: The frame and sash lines can be compared visually; compliance needs measured geometry and operational checks.
Check needed: Measure plumb, square and clearances against the installed system’s specification; check opening, closing and locking.
Sight lines and final inspection: GGF §3.26 and Table 3. Measurements are needed to assess alignment.
A second close view records the lower frame line and its spacing above the sill.
Concern: The frame and sash lines can be compared visually; compliance needs measured geometry and operational checks.
Check needed: Measure plumb, square and clearances against the installed system’s specification; check opening, closing and locking.
Final inspection: GGF §3.26 and Table 3. Perspective and the absence of a scale prevent a reliable tolerance finding.
Dates come from camera metadata unless supplied by me. November 2023 installation-stage dates and the chronology of later concealed discoveries are from my account. Multiple angles are not additional defects. A current repair reconciliation and independent technical assessment remain to be completed. None of the first-floor windows has been assessed externally because of the height. This gallery and the snagging list do not represent a complete assessment of the installation. Gallery previews are cropped to fill their panels; select an image to view the full, uncropped photograph.
My January 2024 snagging list contained 300-plus observations, varying in seriousness. Later removal of trims or internal sills revealed additional concealed issues. None of the first-floor windows has been assessed externally because of the height, so both the original list and subsequent checks remain substantially incomplete in their coverage.
I supplied this room-by-room list at T&K’s request on 30 January 2024. It covered the concerns known to me then, before the later discoveries behind trims:
This was a non-exhaustive historical list of my observations, including areas needing inspection. It is not a reconciled count of separate defects still outstanding today. T&K disputed my assessment and declared completion in November 2024; the chronology records the correspondence that followed.
None of the first-floor windows has been assessed externally because of the height. The original snagging list and subsequent checks therefore leave a substantial part of the installation unassessed. The full extent of any external issues at first-floor level remains unknown.
Every area I have opened up and checked has revealed an issue I consider serious. I’m concerned these discoveries may be the tip of the iceberg, with more problems concealed elsewhere.
The built-up junction exposed behind the trim and cracking beside the bay raise a possible structural integrity concern requiring further investigation. This should cover both ends, the fixings, any load-bearing support, and the survey and installation detail.
A small number of issues appeared after T&K stopped work, leaving the installation unfinished. Some have worsened over time. I’m concerned about water ingress and further property damage, and want the affected work assessed and put right.
I have not been supplied with an Assure or equivalent Building Regulations compliance certificate for this installation. The DGCOS insurance paperwork is a different document.
I raised problems with opening, closing, alignment, seals and finishes. These were the everyday details I wanted checked and put right.
I wanted to know what each return visit would achieve and what would still be left afterwards. My account is that we never reached an agreed final sign-off.
My emails raised damage to surfaces, plaster, render, decoration, tiles and belongings. I wanted the damage addressed alongside the installation.
I made an agreed payment in May 2024 while work continued. I later challenged the invoice and remaining balance. The exact payment reconciliation is still unresolved.
If another installer has to finish or rectify the work, what protection will I have? I want that answered clearly, alongside the written guarantee and compliance certification.
My January 2024 email also raised concerns about doors being left unsecured and keys being unavailable. These concerns relate to that period, not our home’s current security.
My order acknowledgment referred to a ten-year guarantee, with final paperwork following payment of the balance. I have not received the final installer’s guarantee or an Assure or equivalent compliance certificate. DGCOS insurance documents were supplied separately.
I want issues that have appeared or worsened to be assessed and rectified under the applicable guarantee terms. I also want clarity about the protection remaining if another installer has to put the work right. The contract has different cover periods for different parts of the installation and addresses third-party work.
What would you pay for an unfinished installation with unresolved defects, no compliance certificate supplied and no final installer’s guarantee?
The main events, with the detailed record available below.
T&K booked 30 October–7 November, allowing seven days subject to circumstances outside its control. Completion paperwork and payment were to follow.
My account is that installation began as booked. Further visits and work followed well beyond the planned seven days.
I emailed the room-by-room list T&K had requested, setting out the problems I had found. I said it was not exhaustive and separately identified first-floor external checks I could not carry out.
The invoice emailed on 10 May was dated 30 October 2023 and requested £12,750. My same-day email confirms the agreed payment was made but gives no amount. My explicit written objection is dated 17 January 2025. The exact payment reconciliation remains unresolved.
T&K said the job was complete, met industry standards and the balance was due. I disagreed: my account was of unfinished work and no joint final sign-off.
T&K issued its claim for payment. I disputed the balance.
I queried the missing attachment and the questionnaire already supplied. No later answer or outcome has been checked.
Quotations, appointments, reported issues and procedural updates. Source references identify the private evidence register.
T&K arranged a design appointment for 11 June. Our quotation discussions began well before the 2023 installation.
Source references: E001T&K emailed proposed Residence window layouts. The attached PDF has not been checked.
Source references: E002An early £27,598 quotation was subject to survey and final price checks, with a 10% deposit proposed.
Source references: E003Discussions resumed, with telephone and showroom arrangements following.
Source references: E004 · E005 · E006 · E007 · E008 · E009I said other projects had delayed my decision and that I would return to it in the new year.
Source references: E270 · E272 · E273 · E274We discussed viewing the Residence 9 windows during restrictions.
Source references: E010 · E011 · E012I requested the quotations and followed up on 8, 11 and 15 February.
Source references: E277 · E278 · E279 · E280I asked four times across 14 calendar days. I have not located a written answer between those messages, although calls may have taken place.
Source references: E277 · E278 · E279 · E280I chased on 29 April and 7 May, then again on 25 and 31 May after the appointment.
Source references: E281 · E282 · E286 · E287 · E288T&K proposed another measurement visit, provisionally for 19 May, before re-quoting.
Source references: E013 · E014 · E015 · E016 · E017 · E018 · E019Eleven days after my first chase, T&K apologised and proposed another measurement visit. I was still waiting for the quotation.
Source references: E281 · E282 · E013T&K quoted £42,347 for Residence 9 and £30,606 for flush casements.
Source references: E020T&K gave prompt status replies on 25 May; the quotations arrived eight calendar days later, after another chase.
Source references: E286 · E017 · E287 · E018 · E288 · E019 · E020T&K quoted £33,560 for a mix of Residence 9 and flush windows.
Source references: E024A £33,218.31 quotation followed discussions about colour availability.
Source references: E025I requested the updated quotation four times in January and asked for a timescale on 8 February.
Source references: E296 · E297 · E298 · E299 · E303I restarted discussions after a pause. Further questions and chasers followed in December and January.
Source references: E304 · E305 · E307 · E308 · E309 · E310T&K answered eight days after my request, about 71 minutes after my chase.
Source references: E307 · E308 · E028T&K sent updated pricing. I then requested changes to the scope and asked about staged work.
Source references: E029 · E030I chased the changes I had requested 39 days earlier. I have not located a written answer in between.
Source references: E030 · E310T&K supplied updated quotations in September, with funding options to follow.
Source references: E031 · E032Sales emails discussed the specification, discounts and a ten-year guarantee. The final contract came later.
Source references: E034 · E035 · E038 · E041I wanted to see a comparable window and clear up quotation errors, energy ratings and product details before proceeding.
Source references: E311 · E312 · E313 · E314 · E315 · E316 · E317 · E318 · E319The signed contract records £27,500: a £13,750 deposit, no interim stage payments and £13,750 payable once practically complete.
Source references: E044 · E047 · U001T&K acknowledged the £13,750 deposit and described payment on completion, followed by final guarantee documentation.
Source references: E052T&K booked a survey for 29 September and requested checks before signing the survey confirmation.
Source references: E053The surveyor sent designs. An October/November installation depended on ordering the frames in time.
Source references: E054T&K requested the signed order and survey confirmation, quoting an indicative four-to-six-week period.
Source references: E055I queried frame proportions, handles and dates. I accepted the revised design the next day.
Source references: E321 · E322 · E057The surveyor clarified the amended frame and silver handles. The 30 October week remained provisional.
Source references: E057I expressly accepted the reduced £26,500 price without finance and returned an attachment requested for the survey confirmation.
Source references: E058 · E323 · E324DGCOS emailed insurance policy documents, separate from T&K’s own guarantee and compliance certification.
Source references: E056 · E059The surveyor confirmed the frames were ordered; installation dates awaited factory delivery confirmation.
Source references: E061T&K booked 30 October–7 November, allowing seven days subject to circumstances outside its control. Completion paperwork and payment were to follow.
Source references: E062I asked for the fitting order so we could prepare our home. I accepted T&K’s proposed sequence on 24 October.
Source references: E327 · E328 · E329 · E330 · E065T&K proposed starting upstairs, aiming for six frames a day and agreeing the remaining sequence with me.
Source references: E063 · E064 · E065My account is that installation began as booked. Further visits and work followed well beyond the planned seven days.
Source references: E062 · E089T&K cancelled an unaccepted 2 January slot and proposed 12 January. I accepted the replacement date.
Source references: E066 · E331T&K confirmed the 12 January return visit and asked about silicone.
Source references: E067The operations manager asked how the previous week’s work had finished and requested a call.
Source references: E068T&K asked me to email the snagging items I had found so it could review them.
Source references: E069I emailed the room-by-room list T&K had requested, setting out the problems I had found. I said it was not exhaustive and separately identified first-floor external checks I could not carry out.
Source references: E070I reported unsecured doors and unavailable keys. This is a historical account, not a description of current home security.
Source references: E070T&K acknowledged my list, disputed my assessment and proposed independent mediation and assessment.
Source references: E071 · E072My list was acknowledged around 42 hours later. That evening, T&K disputed my assessment and proposed independent mediation and assessment.
Source references: E070 · E071 · E072T&K provisionally offered 1 March and asked me to confirm.
Source references: E073T&K proposed another visit on 23 March to complete downstairs work.
Source references: E074I could not make the proposed Saturday and asked for a weekday. T&K offered 12 April, which I accepted.
Source references: E075 · E335 · E336The invoice emailed on 10 May was dated 30 October 2023 and requested £12,750. My same-day email confirms the agreed payment was made but gives no amount. My explicit written objection is dated 17 January 2025. The exact payment reconciliation remains unresolved.
Source references: E076 · E077 · E089 · U005 · E337T&K thanked me for payment. A replacement unit was still on order and more visits were being arranged.
Source references: E077I raised the replacement window, tile repairs, silicone and Kubu costs. I also explained that our wider refurbishment had been on hold for months.
Source references: E339T&K said the replacement window would be ordered and further work arranged once it had a delivery date.
Source references: E079T&K replied seven days later. It addressed some points, but the work and costs were not all resolved in that reply.
Source references: E339 · E079T&K expected the replacement window in mid-September, with remedial work to be arranged. This was an estimate.
Source references: E080I asked to retain 21–22 October and supplied the requested silicone link. The emails confirm arrangements, not completed work.
Source references: E341 · E342 · E081 · E082Nearly a year after the original programme, T&K confirmed it had ordered the silicone.
Source references: E081 · E082T&K proposed 11 November; I accepted. Its later email says the visit took place.
Source references: E083 · E084 · E343T&K said the job was complete, met industry standards and the balance was due. I disagreed: my account was of unfinished work and no joint final sign-off.
Source references: E084 · E089DGCOS initially could not find the registration. It corrected that position the next day.
Source references: E085DGCOS located the record under a different postcode and explained its complaint route.
Source references: E087T&K’s solicitor demanded £6,375 as the balance after the May payment. I disputed that payment was due.
Source references: U010RISA offered a callback about suitable inspection reports. No completed inspection is established by that email.
Source references: E088T&K issued its claim for payment. I disputed the balance.
Source references: U004I sent a detailed account of the unfinished work, damage, paperwork, payments and repeated visits—and challenged the invoice.
Source references: E089After I chased receipt, the solicitor acknowledged my summary and said instructions were awaited. Three calendar days had passed since I sent it.
Source references: E089 · E090 · E091My Defence and Counterclaim is recorded as filed on 24 January. The court later confirmed it was logged.
Source references: E162 · E230I asked for an update and reported that calls were going to voicemail.
Source references: E347Twenty days after my summary, I was still receiving holding updates about instructions and a handover, rather than a full answer.
Source references: E089 · E093 · E095 · E347 · E096T&K sent its Defence to Counterclaim.
Source references: E110RISA quoted £799 plus VAT for a condition report, and later £1,200 plus VAT for an expert witness report—not repair costs.
Source references: E128 · E129RISA said an inspection date depended on payment confirmation. No completed report is established by these emails.
Source references: E130 · E131 · E133 · E137T&K’s solicitors said they had asked the court to progress the case and issue questionnaires.
Source references: E148CNBC later confirmed transfer to Northampton on this date.
Source references: E229The correspondence records both sides submitting Directions Questionnaires.
Source references: E161 · E162 · E163DGCOS emailed insurance documents again. Their policy terms and dates still need checking against the PDFs.
Source references: E189 · E192I asked the court for the case status, directions and hearing position.
Source references: E226CNBC confirmed the October 2025 transfer and referred my enquiry to Northampton.
Source references: E229Northampton confirmed the Defence and Counterclaim were logged and reported no allocation notice, hearing date or directions at that time.
Source references: E230T&K’s solicitor disputed my Google review and said it would seek a removal order if I did not remove it. No order was supplied.
Source references: E234Trustpilot hid the review at 09:56 BST and restored it at 10:41 after its assessment. This was a moderation outcome.
Source references: E249 · E250The court requested a questionnaire and further evidence by 23 October before referral. The email contained no questionnaire attachment.
Source references: S001 · E352I submitted a further account of my experience to ProvenExpert and received its confirmation email.
Source references: E263I queried the missing attachment and the questionnaire already supplied. No later answer or outcome has been checked.
Source references: E352 · S001T&K issued its claim for payment on 7 January 2025. I disputed the balance and filed a Defence and Counterclaim dated 24 January. T&K’s Defence to Counterclaim is dated 16 April.
On 16 October 2026, the court asked for a questionnaire and further evidence by 23 October before referral. I replied on 21 October because the attachment was missing and I had already supplied a questionnaire.
I also described what happened on review platforms.
On 5 October 2026, T&K’s solicitor disputed my review and said it would seek a court order if I did not remove it. That email was a request, not an order.
On 6 October, Trustpilot temporarily hid my review after a flag from the business. About 45 minutes later, it confirmed the review would be restored. This was the platform’s moderation decision.
I submitted a further review on 18 October 2026, describing my experience of the installation and dispute.
Experiences are published only after individual review and approval.
No customer experiences have been published yet.
Contact details will be added here when submissions open.
Submissions are closed. Before opening, a full privacy notice must identify the controller, contact route, purposes, lawful basis, retention, providers and rights. Publication will require permission for the exact wording and display name.