LETTER BEFORE SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACTION
IMPORTANT LEGAL, JURISDICTION AND FORMALITY WARNING
This fictional letter is a fully worked educational example, not legal advice, not a court claim form, not a judgment and not a guarantee that the sender will win. It assumes a consumer contract made in England and Wales and a possible claim suitable for the County Court small-claims track. The correct defendant, cause of action, contractual terms, limitation period, interest basis, court fee, service method and pre-action steps must be checked against the real facts. A letter before action does not itself start proceedings, stop limitation, prevent enforcement, or create a judgment. The recipient should obtain independent advice before admitting liability or making payment, and the sender should obtain advice before issuing a claim or signing a statement of truth.
Date: 6 November 2026
To: Oakmere Home Improvements Limited, 18 Mill Lane, Oxford OX2 7JQ Company number: 09421867 Email: accounts@oakmerehome.example.test
From: Daniel Rowan Ellis, 42 Calder Road, Oxford OX3 8HT Telephone: 01865 555 214 Email: daniel.ellis@example.test
Subject: Letter before action — claim for £1,488.40 for incomplete bathroom works, estimate OH-2619
1. Parties and the amount claimed
I write about the domestic bathroom refurbishment contract that I made with Oakmere Home Improvements Limited on 17 March 2026. The work was to be carried out at my home, 42 Calder Road, Oxford OX3 8HT. Oakmere accepted my order by email from its director, Miriam Holt, and issued estimate OH-2619, which became the agreed scope when I paid the requested deposit. The agreed price was £4,860.00, including labour, ordinary installation materials and removal of the existing sanitaryware. The agreed completion date was 24 April 2026, subject to a reasonable adjustment for matters outside the contractor’s control.
I paid £2,000.00 by bank transfer on 17 March 2026 and £1,500.00 by bank transfer on 3 April 2026. The total paid is therefore £3,500.00. Oakmere supplied materials and performed part of the work, but left the bathroom incomplete on 29 April 2026. After allowing access for inspection and giving a reasonable opportunity to return, I engaged another contractor to make the room safe and complete the agreed items. Ridgeway’s remedial-works invoice is £1,236.80. It is evidence of the work required and of a reasonable local cost, but it is not claimed separately.
My principal is a separate contractual valuation loss, calculated as follows:
* £3,500.00 paid to Oakmere; * less £1,980.00 for the value of usable and accepted work and materials; * equals £1,520.00 for the value of the incomplete or defective contracted work; and * less £31.60 for the final sealant kit included in the estimate but not required.
The resulting principal claim is £1,488.40: £3,500.00 less £1,980.00 equals £1,520.00, and £1,520.00 less £31.60 equals £1,488.40. This contractual valuation does not add, subtract or otherwise use the £1,236.80 Ridgeway invoice as a separate head of loss; that invoice remains evidence of the remedial works and their reasonableness, not a separately claimed amount. No £900.00 invoice deduction is used in the calculation. I also claim interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 if the court considers it appropriate. At 8% per annum on £1,488.40 from 6 May 2026 to 6 November 2026, 184 days, the calculation is £1,488.40 multiplied by 0.08 multiplied by 184 divided by 365, which is £60.03 when rounded to the nearest penny. The present total is therefore £1,548.43, before any recoverable issue fee and continuing interest. Interest on £1,488.40 at 8% is approximately £0.33 per day, subject to the court’s discretion and the applicable legal basis.
2. Agreed scope and chronology
The estimate described removal of the old bath, installation of a shower tray and enclosure, fitting a wall-hung basin and toilet, replacement of the bathroom floor tiles, connection of the existing plumbing, resealing around the shower and removal of the waste materials. I told Ms Holt that the bathroom had to be watertight and usable by the end of April because my household includes my mother, Evelyn Rose Ellis, who uses the room with a walking frame. Oakmere did not give a written guarantee of a particular start date, but it accepted the completion date in its email of 18 March 2026.
Oakmere removed the old bath on 6 April. On 9 April its employee, Lewis Grant, installed the shower tray. On 14 April the company fitted the toilet and basin. On 22 April I reported that the tray rocked when weight was applied, the shower screen was not level and the waste pipe dripped into the cabinet below the basin. Mr Grant applied additional sealant and said he would return with a support pack. No support pack was installed. A further appointment on 28 April was cancelled by Oakmere because its van was unavailable.
On 29 April I inspected the room with Ms Holt. The shower screen still moved by approximately 8 millimetres at its outer edge, the tray had not been properly supported, two floor tiles were loose, the basin waste joint was damp after the tap ran for five minutes, and the old extractor fan had not been reconnected. The bathroom could not reasonably be used as a finished installation. Ms Holt said Oakmere could return on 9 May. I confirmed by email that I would provide access, but asked that the company identify the tradesperson and confirm the proposed repair method.
On 5 May, Oakmere emailed that it would not return unless I paid a further £1,360.00 for labour and alleged variations. I had not agreed those variations. The estimate allowed for the work described above, and the only additional request I made was to retain the existing extractor rather than replace it. On 6 May I sent a written complaint, gave Oakmere until 20 May to propose a no-cost inspection and completion plan, and warned that I would obtain a proportionate remedy if it did not do so. Oakmere did not provide a plan. Its last substantive response, on 13 May, said the installation was complete and that any further work was chargeable.
Because the leaking waste could damage the cabinet and floor, Ridgeway Plumbing and Tiling, operated by Sofia Ahmed, inspected on 18 May. Her report dated 20 May records an unsupported shower tray, failed seal at the screen junction, a basin waste leak and two loose tiles. She recommended removing and refitting the tray support, resealing the enclosure, replacing the failed waste washer and relaying the two tiles. Ridgeway completed those limited remedial works between 25 and 27 May for £1,236.80, made up of £720.00 labour, £438.40 materials and £78.40 waste disposal. The invoice is evidence of the remedial works and their reasonableness, not a separately claimed item. The work was completed at a reasonable local rate and I obtained no premium upgrade.
3. Legal and factual basis
I rely on Oakmere’s contractual promise to carry out the identified works and on the consumer rights that may apply to the service, including the requirement that a service be performed with reasonable care and skill and within a reasonable time where no different time is agreed. The installation was not complete by the agreed date, the shower and basin works were not performed with reasonable care and skill, and Oakmere declined a reasonable opportunity to inspect and remedy the defects without an agreed additional charge.
I do not suggest that this letter proves every fact or prevents Oakmere from disputing causation, scope or valuation. Oakmere may inspect the bathroom by giving at least seven days’ written notice and naming a suitably qualified person. Any inspection must be non-destructive unless we separately agree otherwise. The repaired areas remain available for inspection, and I have retained the removed washer and photographs. This offer of inspection is intended to reduce the issues, not to waive any right to rely on the condition recorded before repair.
The documents I can provide are the estimate and 17 March 2026 order email, the 18 March 2026 completion-date email, bank confirmations for £2,000.00 and £1,500.00, emails of 22 and 29 April, the complaint of 6 May, Oakmere’s replies of 5 and 13 May, photographs taken on 29 April, Ridgeway’s report of 20 May, Ridgeway invoice RW-0527 for £1,236.80, and the calculation in section 1. The bank confirmations will be redacted to remove unrelated transactions.
4. Resolution requested
Within 30 days after receiving this letter, please pay £1,548.43 to the bank account from which the original payments were made, or provide a detailed written response. If this letter is received on 6 November 2026, that 30-day deadline is 6 December 2026; if it is received on another date, the deadline is 30 days after the actual date of receipt. The principal claim is £1,488.40 and the presently calculated interest is £60.03. If you dispute any item, identify it separately, state the amount accepted, explain the factual and legal reason for disputing the remainder, and provide copies of documents on which Oakmere relies. A generic assertion that the work was complete will not answer the photographs, inspection report or itemised calculation.
I will consider a proportionate payment proposal if it states the amount of each instalment, the date of the first payment and the date on which the full principal and agreed interest will be paid. I am not obliged to accept instalments and no proposal will be treated as an admission by either side unless recorded in writing. I will also consider mediation or a telephone discussion after Oakmere has provided its substantive position. Any settlement must say whether it includes interest and the issue fee.
5. Intended court route and further steps
If full payment or a satisfactory response is not received by the applicable deadline, I may issue a County Court claim using the appropriate online service or other permitted method. If this letter is received on 6 November 2026, the applicable deadline is 6 December 2026; otherwise it is 30 days after the actual date of receipt. That deadline is a proposed response deadline, not a statement that limitation expires then. I will check limitation before issuing and will not assume that this letter extends or suspends it. I may claim the principal, appropriate interest, the court issue fee and any other remedy or costs permitted by the court. The court will decide the track and procedure; a small-claims track generally limits recoverable costs but does not remove the need to prove the claim or pay the required fee.
I ask Oakmere to preserve the estimate, job sheets, employee messages, photographs, payment ledger, variation records and complaint file. Please address all correspondence to me at 42 Calder Road, Oxford OX3 8HT and daniel.ellis@example.test. Nothing in this letter is a Part 36 offer, an admission, a waiver of rights or consent to service by email. A response by email is welcome, but formal court documents should be served in the manner required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Yours faithfully,
Daniel Rowan Ellis
Signed electronically by Daniel Rowan Ellis on 6 November 2026