On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:22:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter ********
(IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you *required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

Funny that ... I had that grumble back in the 1990s too. In fact I first
became aware of it when a friend of my fathers got ripped off by a
builder.

Dastardly EU, using time travel to enforce their dastardly plans, eh ?

It has always (or at least since 1893 and subsequent case law) in the
UK been the case that in any breach of contract the entity responsible
should normally have an opportunity to resolve the issue. However,
that was not cast in stone and showing objective reason why you didn't
want to allow an opportunity to remedy could be presented and often
was when the case was about faulty workmanship

When the European Commission set about reviewing the Consumer Acquis
they set as one of the principles of the legislation "keeping the
contract alive" and that canceling it must be the last resort.

One aim of the consumer Acquis was stated as being to encourage inter
community consumer trade and to simplify consumer legislation. In
both respects it has, to be kind, been somewhat less than successful.