Thanks again for getting back to me. The supplier gave us replacement boards after this. I was not aware of any problems with them beforehand as they were in the packaging. It was the joiner who said he noticed one of the boards was discoloured at the beginning of the job but obviously did not look closely at the others. He also later told me he thought they were in bad condition when he unpacked them but didn’t tell me at the time. To me, it seems like he didn't take reasonable care but I can't find any similar stories from people of what happens under these circumstances. If the scenario was taken to an extreme, and a tiler spent a week installing cracked bathroom tiles that the customer had bought, can they really then demand payment for the labour when there was a visible defect? Surely the point of hiring an expert is to make sure everything looks right - whether it's materials supplied by the customer or how they fit them? There was no criticism and I was sympathetic to the joiner. He wanted £250 extra + materials to fix the issue. I said that seemed a lot and asked if he could think about the most efficient way to swap the boards to keep the cost down. I also offered him 50% of the money he was asking but he refused and won't even come out to look at the marks he says he did not notice. Since then I have tried several times to reach a compromise to no avail. He now says he is going to send a "debt collector" which has the tone of a veiled threat.

Thanks for the reply. The job was £500 for two days + materials, but this included some timber framing and other parts around the area that was clad. He wants £250 + about £100 of additional materials that he says will need to be replaced. Considering the time spent on the other parts this does not seem like a fair amount but I get the impression he simply can't be bothered coming back. The boards were purchased about 3 months ago. The supplier was helpful and asked the manufacturer to replace them, which they did as a goodwill gesture. However, their guarantee specifically excludes fitting costs and I think the marks were so obvious they should not have been fitted in the first place. He put these pieces up early on the first day, then had another day or so working around them in close proximity so it is hard to believe he did not see the defects at some point before wasting all subsequent time and materials. Photo here: imgbox - fast, simple image host IMGBOX.COM Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It's simple, free and blazing fast!

We hired a joiner to install some cladding outside our house that I had bought. After he left, I went to look at the job and instantly saw the cladding is covered in discolored patches. Not just one or two but every single board. I contacted the joiner and he has basically refused to come back to look at them and just demanding full payment. He claims he did not notice the marks at the time and it is my fault as I supplied the cladding. I asked if he could come back to swap them over for a reasonable price but he is asking for the same money again and is unwilling to compromise. It is very hard to understand how he did not notice the damage during the two days he was working in close proximity. He did actually spot one problem board at the start of the job with very bad marks but seemingly didn't pay attention to any others. My suspicion is he did notice the issue at some point but hoped we wouldn't spot it straight away. There was another pack of perfectly good boards there he could have used, so he could have simply used them without losing any time. My question is whether it is fair to say he had a responsibility to notice the damage and not fit them? Thanks in advance.

Well spotted, thanks! I know these things can be relative to how much you use an item but is 4 weeks without a working TV a "significant inconvenience" and should I be able to push to get this repaired locally or on-site?

Thanks for the reply. Retailer is Peter Tyson, just didn't think to mention it! Hopefully the carriage won't be too much but I'm mostly concerned about the amount of hassle involved with returning a large item and being without the main component of my AV system so I can't use it for 4 weeks. I made an assumption, perhaps wrong, that this kind of large electrical item would normally be repaired on-site, at least in the first 12 months - or they would send someone to collect it with a suitable container. What I was hoping for is an onsite/local repair or an exchange - just something that caused me minimum hassle considering the receiver is so new.

I bought a Denon AV receiver about 7 months ago from an online retailer. I now need to return it for a replacement power supply as it is making a humming noise. The retailer tells me I need to purchase packaging, arrange a courier and they will contribute £10 for carriage. This is a large and expensive item so packaging it safely will be a big job and I am not sure that £10 will cover carriage and insurance. They tell me repair could take up to 4 weeks which is very inconvenient as this is a critical part of our media system and used daily. I realise being without films and music isn't the end of the world but on the other hand I am annoyed that such an expensive item has failed so soon and is causing this inconvenience. I see The Consumer Rights Act says: What constitutes "significant inconvenience" and should a large item be expected to be returned with all costs, including packaging refunded?

Good idea, thanks. I am going to try and raise a complaint first then try directors if that doesn't get me anywhere.

Thanks very much for the info. I notice in the CRA section 30 says that a guarantee offered alongside the goods at no extra charge (manufacturers warranty) becomes legally binding but would the CRA2015 retrospectively cover a purchase made in 2014? I will also contact the retailer but at the moment I feel this is unfair on the local shop when the manufacturer has already acknowledged the fault and agreed to send an engineer.

I bought a TV 12 months and 3 weeks ago. Since buying it I had an intermittent problem with the screen going off for about 10 seconds then on again. I eliminated various other pieces of equipment over time then reported it to the manufacturer about 4 months into their warranty. After following their trouble shooting procedure they accepted it was faulty and arranged an engineer repair. When the engineer rang to arrange repair and get details I was away (this was around Christmas). During the discussion I told him I was unsure how to reproduce the issue since it happened intermittently. He said he would leave the case open for the time being. The TV is not my main set so I use it very occasionally. I forgot about the problem until more recently when I was trying to use it again and the same fault occurred. I emailed the manufacturer back with my reference number but they now refuse to repair because it is 3 weeks out of warranty. I realise I could approach the retailer but I feel like the manufacturer is using a technicality to escape from an issue they have already accepted as theirs and promised to repair onsite. It is a lot of hassle for me to transport the TV back to the retailer for a repair and they do not have the original report logged, which the manufacturer does. Can anyone please advise or tell me where I stand legally?

Thanks for explaining. I feel the vindictive part is that the DPS said LL could at least release the undisputed amount. LL has already written to my friend saying the property was left in excellent condition and she agrees to return that part of the deposit, less £70, but she refuses to say this to the DPS so all the money is withheld. Regarding the entry for a viewing - the LL had emailed the day before stating she wanted to view on the Monday bank holiday. My friend replied saying Monday would not be possible but Tuesday was fine. The LL ignored this and arrived on the Monday anyway and attempted to let herself in. My friend's teenage daughter was alone in the house at the time, hence the key in the door. On the Monday LL arrived with a copy of the tenancy agreement and entered using her key, again without knocking. On this occasion she cornered my friend upstairs with her baby waving the tenancy agreement and declaring that it was her house and she could enter whenever she wanted. Someone else called the police during this as LL would not leave nor let my friend and baby downstairs.

Many thanks for the responses. I believe DPS have now told her to pursue it through the SCC but I (naively) thought the DPS were there to avoid that hassle. It seems like there is a loophole which means a vindictive LL can cause the entire deposit to be withheld? There is a clause in the contract stating that letters can be charged at £25 for each letter from the “Landlord’s Agent, acting reasonably”. I don’t think it is reasonable as she could have sent an email but instead sent two letters on consecutive days stating how she would be charging for each one. I am hoping the obvious abuse of letters as a bullying tactic and the LL’s unwillingness to enter in ADR process would reflect pretty badly on the LL in court. In the meantime though my friend is out of pocket and struggling financially but this sounds like it could drag on for a while and there will be upfront court fees.

She has spoken to DPS and tried to begin the ADR but the LL is refusing to respond to it. The LL has emailed my friend saying she does not regard it worth her time to bother with the ADR for "such a small amount". This appears to mean that the entire deposit continues to be withheld indefinitely by the DPS.

My friend’s tenancy agreement ended at the end of June and she vacated the property, fulfilling all contractual obligations for professional cleaning and returning keys. The circa £800 deposit is held with the DPS and my friend has still not had any of it returned due to the landlord disputing £70. After my friend moved out the landlord claimed costs for sending 2 x letters @ £25. Unreasonably these letters were sent on consecutive days. One regarding rent being 3 days late (the first time rent was ever late and it was paid within that week). The second letter was because the landlord had tried to enter the property to show a new tenant, without permission, and the keys were in the other side of the locked door, which prevented her entering. The landlord also claims she needed to paint a coloured wall and was charging £20 for paint. The wall was this colour when the landlord purchased the property and painted by my friend with permission from the previous landlord. As background, the landlord purchased the property with my friend as a tenant last year and has been very difficult. My friend was a good tenant and left the property in excellent condition. However problems escalated towards the end of the agreement when the landlord began entering the property without permission and refusing to leave, culminating in my friend calling the police. Since this time the landlord has become increasingly hostile and made numerous threats to charge for various things which really have no standing. Due to this £70 dispute the landlord has refused to release any part of the undisputed deposit despite numerous requests over the last few weeks. The landlord refuses to enter into any dispute process using DPS and this is causing a lot of distress to my friend who is severely short of money and has a 1 year old daughter undergoing major surgery in the next couple of weeks. What options are there now for my friend to get her deposit back?

Is there something under UK law to prevent an online seller displaying misleading photographs even if there is small print to state the photograph shows something not included? I recently bought what I thought was an A2 picture frame from Amazon. A search on Amazon for "A2 frame" showed this item: (unable to link, please search Amazon for B009RBIZ1O) The item I received was a rolled up poster. On checking Amazon I noticed some small print at the end of the long description. I also noticed other people had left negative reviews because they had also thought they were purchasing a frame. The seller appears to be using an Amazon account to accuse these customers of being stupid. In the meantime they have a much more suitable photograph of a poster they could use as the main image. While it isn't a huge amount of money it annoys me to see they are aware of the confusion from previous customers and leaving comments on their reviews calling customers stupid. All they need to do is swap the photograph but I suspect they know they wouldn't sell as many £10 posters this way. I tried contacting Amazon who just put me in touch with the seller for a refund but I actually want them to change the misleading photo.

A friend of mine has just vacated a property today. The agent who looks after the property came round for check out. She said that because there was dust on the window sills and under the sofa my friend would be charged £50 for cleaning. My friend had taken the day off work to finish moving and clean the property. She had a vacuum cleaner handy and offered to clean the dust there and then. The agent told her that because she had already handed the keys to her at that point she wasn't allowed to vacuum and would have the money taken out of her deposit. Surely my friend is entitled to spend 2 mins vacuuming and avoid a £50 charge? Unfortunately she didn't argue at the time and signed the check out report (of which she doesn't have a copy).