Consumer Direct said to tell the locksmith that they have left me with no option but to get the work carried out elsewhere. They also said to tell them that I will pursue damages from them and my credit card company under section 75 of the consumer credit act. CD totally agreed that they should be replacing the product for free as it has not been durable. If I had not paid by credit card I would have had to take them to court. I would definitely do that even if I would not financially gain from the situation. I hate arrogant companies that think they can fob people off. I am not going to go away and I just hope I can cause them as much inconvenience as possible as they have for me. Now waiting for a form from CC company to put in the claim. CD said to call back if I don't get a positive result. They said I should definitely be getting my money back.

I have spoken to Consumer Direct and they were very helpful. Thanks very much for your help. I will take this to court as a matter of principle even if I end up out of pocket!

Just gone back to them and they are still refusing "The reasonable period of time mentioned in a) is the 100 days guarantee that we give to all customers, the date of the job being completed is 11th August 2013 which therefore exceeds the guarantee. Unfortunately, we would only be able to offer no charge on the replacement lock but would still charge the reduced rate of £49 per hour + VAT on the labour." We seem to have a difference of opinion on what a reasonable amount of time for a front door lock to work is. I would have though many years rather than a few months!

I have just had this repsonse from the locksmith after I quoted Supply of Goods and Services Act: "We would like to confirm with you that we are not refusing to replace the lock for you but unfortunately the labour is no longer under guarantee and would be charged at a reduced rate of £49 per hour + VAT providing that the lock we replaced originally is faulty." What is the diffrence between labour and goods being under gurantee? It seems they are trying to get out of their legal obligation: (2)If the transferee requires the transferor to repair or replace the goods, the transferor must — (b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage). Not good.

Thanks for your advice. I think SGAS Act 11N.2.B answers my question.

In mid August 2013 I used an emergency locksmith to fit a new front door lock which cost £182.91. Four months later the lock has broken and the key will not come out when the door is locked. I am having to use the back door of the house. I called up the locksmith and they said they will repair or replace the lock for free but I am expected to pick up labour costs for carrying out the repair/replacement work. I challenged this and they said they would reduce the labour charge from £88 per hour to £50 per hour as a gesture of goodwill as they could see where I was coming from. I again refused because I believe they have supplied faulty goods and that they should rectify the problem at their cost. If the goods had been fit for purpose in the first place I would not need them to carry out additional work. A front door lock can surely be expected to last longer than four months. I paid on credit card and have asked the credit card company to reclaim the money but they have said it depends on the company T&Cs as to what they can claim back. I would have thought that consumer rights and relevant laws would supercede any dodgy company's policy. Anyone know if this is the case?