My patio slabs started to slip after just a year, but the builder won't reply to my emails: Consumer lawyer DEAN DUNHAM replies

• e-mail

In 2024, I got a new patio laid but, just a year later, some of the slabs started to move. 

The tradesman came back and fixed it once but now the slabs are sliding again. I wrote two emails to him but had no reply. What should I do?

A.W., South-West.

If the slabs have started moving, that strongly suggests the work fell below that standard.

At that stage, the law gave you the right to require the tradesperson to return and put things right, which they did. 

However, as the problem has reoccurred and they are now ignoring you, the situation moves on.

Ignored: A builder who appears to have done a poor job repairing a reader's patio won't reply to letters or emails (file picture)

The Act makes clear that if a repair either fails or is not carried out properly, you are entitled to take things further.

You now have two options: you can insist the trader returns again to fix it properly, or you can demand a price reduction. In practical terms, that usually means recovering some or all of what you paid so you can get the job done correctly by someone else.

My advice is to write a firm, clear letter along these lines: ‘Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the patio you installed is defective. 

Although you attempted a repair, the problem has reoccurred. This indicates the work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill.

‘Please confirm within 14 days that you will return and rectify the issue at no cost to me. If you fail to respond, I will instruct another contractor and pursue you through the small claims court for the full cost, plus any associated fees.’

If the tradesperson still ignores you, get two independent patio specialists to inspect the work and provide written quotes for the repair. 

This evidence will put you in a strong position to issue a claim through the small claims court via the Government website: gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money.

Sister can't get refund for 'iPad' mistake 

My elderly sister bought what she thought was an iPad from a major retailer, but it turned out to be a keyboard for an iPad instead. 

The company won’t refund her as the tamper-proof security stickers are no longer attached to the box. She has early onset dementia. What can we do?

T.W., Darlington.

Dean Dunham replies: The first step is to work out why your sister believed she was buying an iPad rather than a keyboard. Was the product listing unclear or misleading, or did confusion arise because of her condition? This distinction is important.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be ‘as described’. In simple terms, the description provided by the retailer must be accurate and not misleading. So, you need to carefully review how the item was presented, whether online or in store, and consider whether a reasonable person would have thought they were purchasing an iPad rather than an accessory.

Price is also a key factor. An iPad typically costs significantly more than a keyboard. If the item was priced in a way that aligns more closely with a tablet than an accessory, that could strengthen the argument that the overall presentation was misleading.

If, having looked at all of this, you believe your sister was misled, she should be entitled to a full refund under the Act. Importantly, the issue with the missing security stickers should not override her statutory rights in these circumstances.

I recommend writing to the retailer on your sister’s behalf. Set out clearly why the product description was misleading and include any supporting evidence, such as screenshots or photographs of the listing she relied upon. It’s also worth highlighting the pricing point as part of your argument.

If the retailer still refuses a refund, and your sister paid by credit or debit card, she may be able to pursue a chargeback through her card provider on the basis that the retailer has breached its contract.

If she did not pay by card, the remaining option would be to issue a claim through the small claims court, although given her early dementia, this may be more challenging and is best treated as a last resort.