Of course, my Lords, consumers must have appropriate remedies if goods are not installed correctly, especially if this puts them at risk. The Bill provides that, if a consumer has a contract with a trader for goods to be both supplied and installed, the installation must be done correctly. If it is not done correctly, the consumer can ask the trader to rectify this by a repair or replacement. This would include a re-installation.
For example, a consumer buys a door and pays the seller to fit it, too. After a few days, a hinge is loose. In most cases it suits both parties for the trader to be given the chance to come back and refit the door. As a consumer, I would certainly want the goods that I had bought to be installed correctly, and I would take the opportunity for the installer to put this right had they not done so correctly initially. As a trader whose business is often based upon word of mouth and reputation, I would certainly want to be given the chance to correct a faulty installation.
However, we recognise that there may occasionally be cases in which a trader has done such a bad job that the consumer does not want them back on their property; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has given us some examples of these occasions—indeed, of workmen from hell. However, the Bill does not prevent the consumer from seeking alternative remedies. For example, they have the alternative option of claiming damages for the loss they have suffered from shoddy or dangerous work carried out. In extreme and hopefully very limited cases such as this, damages may provide a more appropriate remedy.
Businesses also wish to avoid the cost and damage to their reputation of a court case. The consumer can use the right to damages as the basis for negotiation. For this reason, the Bill enables consumers to receive appropriate redress as a result of a poor installation in the various circumstances which may arise. As a result, the amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.