A couple of months ago, I was contacted about repairing a Sharp boombox.
I explained my charges over the phone, that the cost would be £80 call out/inspection fee and the repair from £150+ the cost of parts, to which he agreed.
The machine had previously been worked on and there was quite a bit of bodging. This was explained to the customer.
The fault was very intermittent, most of the time it worked. I did find something that could have contributed to the fault and repaired it.
It has now failed again after a week and I offered to take another look at it but this was refused and a MCOL claim was issued.
The claimant did not comply with the pre action protocol, which could have had his claim negotiated and prevented court costs.
This is how I want to respond.
When the claimant cont contacted me, he was told that the cost would be £80 call out/inspection fee and the repair from £150+ the cost of parts, to which he agreed (to include the £80 inspection fee/call out fee).
When the machine was dismantled, I found that a previous person had carried out work that was bodged. The original on/off switch was broken and a new one somehow fitted in very loosely. The cassette lid had been broken and it would appear 3d parts had been printed but did not work well.
The fault was very intermittent and was nigh on impossible to reproduce. I then checked several parts that could have contributed to the fault, repaired as necessary and then soak tested the unit. The fault did not show up once I’d reassembled it.
When I returned the machine, the claimant put it on a chair to test it, but it appeared the record player didn’t work. This is because there is a hidden switch which prevents it from being played unless it’s put on a table.
The claimant collected the machine from me, I showed it to him working, he tested the Bluetooth and the record player, I showed him also that the radio worked.
The original power switch is no longer available, nor is the cassette door. I am not responsible for other peoples bodges.
The claimant reported that the machine had failed with the original fault after one week, I offered to take another look at it, but this was refused by the claimant.
The claimant did not comply with the pre action protocol. Had he have done so, we could have come to an amicable agreement without incurring court fees.
For these reasons I refute the claim.
I can either admit to a partial refund, or dispute the claim in full.
Can someone give me some advice.
