I'll edit your post to clear up the the misunderstandings. Andrew there seems to be crossed wires here as I just had a talk with all the guys and the repair work that is being done just now will last 5 years +. A strip and reslate at present is not imminent although you should be looking at reslating the roof in about 5 years or so. Here's what I can offer you Andrew. If the team proceed with all repairs as per quote and existing plan, that will mean that you have a sealed roof to properly plan your strip and reslate. I will then quote you for a strip and reslate and give you discount on that which will cover the cost of the existing repairs. It's basically buying you time to properly plan the full strip and reslate whilst keeping you water tight for the time being. Let me know what you think of that Andrew. The money you're paying now will be discounted off the full strip and reslate price so you won't lose any money. Does that work Andrew? Thanks. Lee Sorry about the formatting, I'm on mobile so struggling a bit with the quotes.

Thanks, to be honest I'm not sure myself the difference they meant between the full repair that was agreed and 'doing what is necessary to get it water tight' as either way they were to fix the leak and make the roof water tight. And the fact they said their warranty and discount offer were good for 5 years made me believe that whatever they did to fix the leak would last at least that long so it wasn't going to be a temporary fix. The major change I noticed from the original quote to the revised quote that they sent after they finished was changing 'full break out and replacement of cement skews' to only a partial replacement, which I've since found out was only about 30cm. I didn't know enough about roofs to realise that that was about half of the agreed work that they were able to omitted. I've since had another roofer round for a second opinion and they reckon that a full break out and replacement of the skews was easily a £1-1.5k job so that's the sort of discount I should have expected if they didn't carry out that job, not £300. And it's the cement skews that are the likely cause of the leaks, but because their new quote doesn't specify this, and because they didn't carry out that work they say it's not covered, despite them taking the money to cover the work that such a job would have entailed. I hope this is starting to make some sense, the mid-job changes has certainly muddied the waters.

Hi, yes I'm in Scotland. I only found out about simple procedures yesterday when I started looking into it. Sorry if there was any confusion in my post; the quote I agreed to was for £3150 for fixing the leak, I paid nothing prior to work commencing and it wasn't until 2 hours into the repair that the sub contractors stopped to tell me the roof really needed replaced. They did no further work that day while I got back in touch with the roofing company to discuss options. It was agreed that they would send the sub contractors back the next day to do what was necessary to get the roof water tight so that I would have time to save for and arrange a re-slate of the roof. So they came back, completed the repairs, offered a £300 discount on the cost (bringing it to £2850) and issued a new quote covering the work they carried out. They said that the money I paid would be discounted from the cost of the re-slate (which they'd honor for up to five years), and as I believed the the roof was now water tight I paid the balance. But after I found out the same leak was still there they claimed it's not an area they touched, so it's not covered by their guarantee, and as such are refusing to come back to fix it.

Hi there, long time since I've posted here. TL:DR; full story below, but the jist is I got someone out to fix my roof, after initial quote they said I need a new roof so I agreed to an adjusted quote to just make roof watertight for now and a promise this would be discounted from new roof cost. Roof is still leaking from the same spot and they're refusing to fix it as the leak is in a part of the roof they didn't touch. New roof quote was clearly inflated to cover the cost of my 'discout' so have no plans to follow through with that. So I'm now left £2850 out of pocket and the roof still leaking from the same spot, I want to lodge a small claim but I'm worried they are now above recourse as I agreed to their adjusted quote so they're defense would be that they have done exactly what they said they would on the new quote. Full story: I recently got quotes to fix a leak in my roof, and following inspection and what looked like a quote for a competitive repair I went with a company that has a good price and very prompt updates from the owner of the company. Couple weeks later two guys came round in the afternoon and after 2 hours said my was a mess and needed replaced, immediately got in touch with the company owner who said they'll do the minimum to get rid watertight, then discount the work off the cost of a full strip and re-slate. They made it seem like a win-win as the leak will still get fixed, and I'll have time to save for and arrange a new roof with them and not have to worry about losing the money I spend on the repair so I agreed to this. They have now been and gone, the sent a new quote covering the actual work they did with a token £300 discount, but assured me off the bigger picture that this money would just come of the quote for the new roof. So I naively paid them the £2850 for the repair, and they came back with what looks like an inflated quote for a new roof (which I'm sure anyone reading this probably saw coming a mile away). And to make matters worse it rained the following week and the roof is still leaking in the same spot so their repair have had no effect. I asked them to come back, they sent someone round and they said the work they did is solid, and the leak is elsewhere but that's not covered by their warranty, I was shocked as their now refusing to fix the leak the were hired to fix in the first place as they 'didn't touch' that area during their repairs so it's not their problem, and said they told me the roof needs replaced so I shouldn't be surprised. I'm now looking to lodge a small claims/simple procedure to get my money back as they're refusing to fix the leak, and I'm now £2850 out of pocket. I'm worried I no longer have a leg to stand on though as I accepted an adjusted quote that was for only the work they did, although I did do it in good faith that the leak was fixed as they said they would make it watertight with a warranty good for 5 years. Should I still lodge a claim or do you think I've bottled my chance at winning?

Hi, I'll try to keep this short. Preface: So I am working for a retail company for last 6 years, and since summer last year I've been on an 8 hour contract to give me flexibility for my studies. I've been working for 25 hours a week for the last 4 months but now that exams and coursework deadlines are approaching I've asked to only work my 8 contract hours per week until they are over. I have been told by management that I need to give them 4 weeks notice as they have already done the rotas for the next 4 weeks and they can't be changed. I'm only contractually obliged to do overtime during December, all other times are optional. Question: Am I obliged to work the overtime shifts I've been given because they already put the next 4 weeks rotas up, or in the nicest way possible can I tell them I will work the 8 hours I'm contracted for within the availability I've given them, and refuse any overtime? Many thanks for your time.

Thank you for your input blitz, most of that is along the lines of what I was thinking too. Yeah, that was the website I was initially on, and just wanted a little clarification on certain scenarios, thanks for the link though! One more question, which I believe I have found the answer to on this forum and on the website you have mentioned, but I would just like to be absolutely certain: 6. I have been told by my managers that when I am refunding items paid for by debit card, I can only refund the money onto the card used to pay for the goods, or a gift card, and that handing them cash to the value of their refund is illegal and classed as money laundering! Is this true? A link to an official document or website would also be great in this situation so that I can also show my managers if what they are saying is wrong.

Hello everyone, I currently work as a customer service clerk for a large retail organisation and have been researching the Sales of Goods Act so that I am able to provide the best customer service to our customers and stay on the correct side of the law. Now I have a few questions that I wasn't able to get an answer to, and I was hoping that some of you lovely people would be able to help me out. 1. Should a customer bring back a product that they have only had for a short amount of time (7 days for example), claiming that the product if faulty, however the fault they described can quickly and easily be fixed, must the customer accept this fix, or are they still entitled to a full refund? 2. Similar to the 1st scenario, only this time the fault that they are describing cannot be seen upon first inspection, are we (the seller) allowed to take more time to examine or test the product to see if the fault described is present? Or must we just take the customers word for it and refund them. 3. Now this one has been a cause for great debate with customers (and may even warrant it's own thread) - Software faults: I have always been told by management that software that is loaded onto products (phones or computers for example) aren't covered by any kind of warranty due to the fact that when a customer first uses a product, the software changes from what was originally loaded on the device. But from what I have read SOGA should still protect users for faults relating to software? What we also quite often find is that the problem has been caused by something the customer has done, or by a piece of software that has been installed onto the product by the customer, and 9 times out of 10 restoring the product back to the initial factory settings resolves the issue that the customer is having, but if this is the case we would often charge the customer for doing this if they do not want to do it themselves. 4. So my next question is: Should a customer be expected to restore the software back to the state it was initially purchased in before a refund, replacement or repair should be considered, or does that constitute as a faulty product? 5. Also in the case that a separate piece of software or hardware that has been purchased from a different seller by the customer causes the reported issue, would the customer need to take the issue up with the other seller, or would be responsible? Thank you very much for your time in reading and answering my questions.