On 27/09/2020 09:37, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 21:48:06 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

In general I am not a fan of playing nanny however if it really looks
like the customer is a danger to himself and a potential PITA, then by
all means decline the work.

+1

If its less clear cut, then make it clear you believe there may be
risks, and make sure there is an audit trail that shows you made it
clear!

And be prepared to sign your house, savings, investments, etc over to
the lawyers arguing about it.

This is in the "professional" scenario, ie the repairer is set up to
do the work, advertises their services, makes a significant (FSVO
"significant") part of their income from the repairs, etc.


I'd just add that it seems to me further complicated by the statutory
bar on terms which try to exclude or limit a trader's liability in the
event of a consumer's death/injury from something the trader did or
omitted to do.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid