What you actually get:
the analysis and the court bundle.

Why liability looks strong The most important document is not the inspection report. It is Okehollow's own signed quotation, Q-0117. Item 3 expressly promises waterproof tanking of the shower enclosure before tiling. Under section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, what a trader tells you about the service becomes a binding term. Separately, section 49 requires the work to be done with reasonable care and skill. So we do not have to argue abstractly about trade standards. The question is simply whether they did what they promised. Mr Bramley's photo of the rear edge shows a removed tile with bare, darkened plasterboard behind it. Tanking paint is a visible coloured coating, usually blue, grey or pink. If it had been applied, you would expect to see it. The second big point is causation. Okehollow's whole case is that you used the shower before the silicone had cured. But Mr Bramley found three separate problems: - no tanking; - a tray unsupported at the back, moving 2 to 3mm under load; - a waste joint that was only finger-tight and dripped when the shower ran. Silicone curing time has nothing to do with a loose waste joint or a rocking tray. Their explanation, even if true, accounts for at most one of three defects. Also note that the leak came back after their own re-seal on 6 March. That is powerful evidence that silicone was never the answer. That point is easy for a judge to follow. The 'you refused our visit' argument Expect Okehollow to say you denied them the chance to put it right. This is their most persuasive-sounding point, so take it seriously. The answer is in your email chain. On 24 March they offered only another re-seal, the same fix that had already failed. On 25 March you asked them to investigate the actual cause and offered any day the following week. They did not reply. You then warned them on 2 April that you would bring in an independent plumber, and they still said nothing. Section 55 of the 2015 Act gives you the right to require repeat performance. Section 56 allows a price reduction where the trader does not put things right within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience to you. Your claim for damages is expressly preserved by section 54(7). And in law it is for them to prove you acted unreasonably in mitigating your loss, not for you to prove you acted reasonably (Geest plc v Lansiquot [2002] UKPC 48). I think a judge is likely to accept that you behaved sensibly. The procedural issue to fix now In the small claims track, CPR 27.5 says no expert evidence can be used without the court's permission. Mr Bramley was instructed by you, not jointly, and Okehollow is already complaining he was 'one-sided'. Please check the directions on your notice of allocation. If they do not expressly give permission for his report, write to the court now, or file an N244 application (check the current fee), asking for permission to rely on it. Many district judges will allow a short tradesperson's report in a small claim, but we should not leave it to chance. As a fall-back, ask Mr Bramley whether he would attend the hearing. What he physically saw and tested is factual evidence, not opinion: no membrane, a gap at the tray, a joint that was finger-tight and dripping. A witness of fact does not need expert permission. Your photographs stand on their own in any event. I would also write to Okehollow now offering them access on two or three specific dates to inspect the shower themselves. Ask them to produce the receipt for the tanking product they say they used. If they decline, their 'we weren't invited' complaint largely falls away. If they come and find no tanking, their defence collapses. Either way the point is answered. The money: where you are vulnerable You are claiming £3,790. That is the Fennimore quote of £3,650 plus Mr Bramley's £140 fee. Okehollow says the repair is worth about £600. Their figure is not credible, because it assumes there is nothing wrong with the tanking. Stripping tiles, tanking, re-bedding the tray, re-tiling and repairing the kitchen ceiling cannot be done for £600. The general rule from Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 is that the reasonable cost of putting the work right is recoverable where repair is a reasonable thing to do. A leaking shower obviously needs repairing. The kitchen ceiling (£281.67 plus VAT in the quote) is a foreseeable consequence of a leaking shower, so it is recoverable under the ordinary remoteness rule in Hadley v Baxendale. The weakness is that you have only one quote. Judges like to see a second. Please get another itemised quote from a different firm this month. If it comes in similar, the judge has little reason to discount. Okehollow may also argue betterment because Fennimore proposes tile backer board rather than plasterboard. Since the existing board is soaked and must come out anyway, I do not expect that to cost you much. At worst the judge might shave a small amount. Realistically, I expect an award somewhere between about £3,300 and the full £3,790. On top of that you would get interest at 8% under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 (roughly £179 by the hearing) and your court fees: £205 issue fee plus the hearing fee of about £346. Please do not do the remedial work before the hearing unless you first offer Okehollow inspection and photograph everything at every stage. About Okehollow itself The file contains no credit report or CCJ information, so I cannot tell you anything about their finances yet. Before the hearing: - check Companies House to confirm the exact registered name and company number, and that their accounts are up to date; - search the Registry Trust for existing judgments. A trading company with premises that offered £800 can usually pay. If they don't pay within 14 days of judgment, enforcement by High Court enforcement officers or a third party debt order is available. Settlement Their £800 'goodwill' offer was rightly refused. I suggest one written 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer at around £3,400 plus your issue fee, enclosing the second quote, with 14 days to accept. Time it so the deadline falls before the hearing fee is due. Part 36 does not apply in the small claims track, so the offer carries little direct costs weight. Even so, it shows reasonableness and gives them a clear exit. I would not go below roughly £3,000. Can you do this yourself? Yes. This is a well-documented, straightforward consumer claim. You do not need a solicitor at the hearing. Get your witness statement, a one-page chronology, a table linking each defect to each line of the quote, and a paginated bundle in by the directions deadline, which is usually 14 days before the hearing. Pay the hearing fee on time.