County Court in Leeds orders £65 repair-fee refund but rejects claim for £120 hose replacement

The County Court in Leeds ordered appliance repairer Owen Mercer to repay Bethan Cole £65 in additional labour charges, but rejected her request to recover the £120 charged for a visit and hose replacement. Cole had sought repayment of the full £185 she paid for work on her leaking washing machine.

The dispute raised two separate questions: whether Cole had agreed to pay more than the quoted price, and whether a leak returning after the visit proved that the booked repair had failed. The court found sufficient grounds for a refund of the extra charge, but not the original service fee.

The booking exchange recorded a £120 price for the visit and hose replacement, with extras requiring agreement before work. The paid invoice listed another £65 for additional labour, but gave no task description or record of authorisation.

Mercer’s recollection that Cole approved the extra labour was direct evidence, which the court considered. However, Cole denied agreeing, and Mercer acknowledged that no written approval or independent record supported his account. Payment after the work did not establish the prior agreement required by the booking terms.

That finding did not mean no additional labour had been performed. It meant the evidence did not identify the work or establish an agreement to pay for it.

The £120 claim presented a different evidential problem. Mercer said he replaced the hose and saw no leak during testing. Although that account was not independently documented, it was consistent with the invoice. The judgment found Cole had not supplied sufficient detail or supporting evidence connecting the reported failure to the hose replacement.

The booking promised a hose replacement, not a guaranteed cure of every leak. The court therefore declined to infer deficient work from Cole’s allegation alone and limited the remedy to the unsupported extra charge.

Cole relied on the quoted price and the requirement for advance agreement to extras. She said she had not authorised the £65 charge, maintained that the repair had not cured the leak, and sought a refund rather than another visit.

Mercer said Cole approved the additional labour during the visit, while accepting that his recollection was the only support for that approval. He could not provide a more specific description of the extra work from the available records.

On the original repair fee, Mercer argued that the visit and hose replacement had been carried out. He acknowledged that his leak-free test did not prove a lasting repair, but said uncertainty about the later leak did not establish that the whole service was worthless.

Cole accepted Mercer’s booking terms for work on her washing machine in Leeds. After the visit and hose replacement, she paid £185 by bank transfer; the invoice separated the agreed £120 service from the £65 additional labour charge.

The outcome leaves the cause of the returning leak unresolved. It distinguishes an extra fee unsupported by the required agreement from a service charge whose refund required proof of failure. No further relief was awarded.