Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Bethan Cole seeks repayment of £185 paid to Owen Mercer for washing-machine repair work. The record shows that £120 was charged for a visit and hose replacement, and £65 for additional labour. Bethan says she did not agree to the extra charge and that the repair failed. Owen says Bethan approved the extra labour during the visit and that he replaced the hose and observed no leak during his test. 2. The parties have had a final opportunity to explain their positions. Owen says he has no further records or independent evidence about approval or the tasks behind the extra labour. Bethan continues to seek the full £185. The decision must therefore be made on the available record, without treating either party’s allegations as proof by themselves. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Bethan agreed to the £65 extra labour charge; whether she proved that the hose replacement failed or the visit was otherwise deficient; and what refund, if any, is supported by the evidence. 4. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague recollections when they conflict. Rule 37 requires service providers to honor specific promises about price and deliverables, and Rule 38 recognizes that fees are weaker when not clearly disclosed before the customer commits. Under Rule 6, any remedy should match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 5. Bethan relies on the booking message, which quotes £120 for the visit and hose replacement and says extras must be agreed before work. She says she did not agree to the £65 charge and asks for all £185 back because the leak was not cured. She also says she would prefer a refund rather than have Owen return. 6. Owen accepts that the booking message required agreement before extras and that the invoice does not describe the additional labour or record approval. He says his recollection is the only support for his account that Bethan approved the charge. As to the repair, he says he replaced the hose and saw no leak during testing, but accepts that this does not prove the repair lasted. He asks the court to reject or reduce the full-refund request. Evidence and findings 7. The booking message is a supplied written exhibit. It records the £120 price for a visit and hose replacement, Bethan’s acceptance of the booking, and the requirement that extras be agreed before work. It does not record any later conversation about additional work. The invoice is also a supplied exhibit and records £120 for the visit and hose replacement, £65 for additional labour, and payment by bank transfer. It does not identify the extra task or record authorization. These documents establish the quoted terms, the charges, and payment; they do not establish that Bethan approved the extra charge. 8. Owen’s account of approval is direct evidence and has been considered. But he acknowledges that it is his recollection alone, with no written approval or independent record. Bethan denies agreeing. Payment after the work is not, on this record, enough to show that she agreed beforehand, particularly when the invoice does not explain the work and the booking message expressly required prior agreement. I find that approval of the £65 charge has not been established. 9. The record also establishes that the invoice charged £120 for a visit and hose replacement. Owen says he performed that work and observed no leak during testing. Bethan alleges that the repair did not cure the leak, but provides no further account of when it returned, what happened, or what evidence connects it to the hose replacement. The booking message promises replacement of the hose, not a guaranteed cure of every leak. I do not find that the repair failed or that the service was deficient on the evidence presented. Reasons 10. On the extra charge, Bethan has shown a specific prior-agreement term and a separate charge for additional labour. The invoice confirms the charge but does not describe the work or record approval. Owen’s recollection is relevant, but its weight is limited by the absence of any supporting record and by his acknowledgment that no further evidence is available. The evidence does not establish that the required prior agreement occurred. The £65 charge therefore cannot be retained on this record, and Bethan is entitled to repayment of that amount. 11. This finding is limited to the charge and the evidence of approval. It does not establish that Owen performed no additional labour; the invoice labels the charge as additional labour, and Owen says such labour occurred. But the record does not identify the task or show that Bethan agreed to pay for it as required by the booking terms. The court cannot fill that gap by assuming either what the work was or that payment alone amounted to prior agreement. 12. Bethan has not proved that the £120 service charge should also be refunded. Owen’s statement that he replaced the hose and saw no leak during testing is not independently documented, but it is consistent with the invoice’s description of the service. Bethan’s contrary claim that the repair failed is not accompanied by details or supporting evidence. The court cannot infer incompetence or failure merely from the accusation, nor can it treat the booking as a promise of a guaranteed cure when its wording specifies hose replacement. Under Rule 1, the remaining uncertainty on this issue falls on Bethan, who seeks the refund. 13. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to the harm proved. The £65 charge is unsupported as an agreed extra and can be separated from the £120 charge for the booked visit and hose replacement. The record does not show that the booked service had no value, and Bethan’s preference not to have Owen return does not itself prove a right to recover that part of the payment. A £65 repayment, rather than the full £185, matches the established problem. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Bethan Cole in part. Owen Mercer must pay Bethan Cole £65, in the same currency as the recorded charges, as repayment of the additional labour charge that was not established as agreed beforehand. 15. Bethan’s request for repayment of the remaining £120 is denied because she has not proved that the visit and hose replacement failed or had no value. Her request for a total refund of £185 is therefore granted only to the extent of £65. No further relief is awarded on the supplied record.