When a pest control treatment doesn’t work and the infestation is still there weeks later, most people assume they either accept it or take the company to small claims court over the money. There’s a more direct legal right sitting between those two options, and it applies automatically to almost every domestic pest control contract in England, Wales and Scotland, whether or not anyone mentioned it.
The right that’s built into every service contract
Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states plainly: “Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill.” This isn’t something you need to negotiate for or have written into an agreement – it applies automatically to consumer service contracts, including pest control, and a trader can’t lawfully exclude their liability under this section through their own terms and conditions.
Why this is about process, not just results
The important nuance is what “reasonable care and skill” actually judges. It focuses on how the service was carried out, not simply whether the end result was what you wanted. In practice this cuts both ways for pest control: a company that follows correct identification, uses an appropriate product and method, and treats accessible entry points properly has likely met the standard even if, say, a particularly resistant infestation needs a follow-up visit. Conversely, a company that misidentifies the pest, uses an inappropriate product, or skips an obvious access point has arguably failed the standard even if it can point to some limited initial improvement.
How the standard actually gets judged
The Act deliberately doesn’t define a fixed checklist for “reasonable,” because the standard is meant to flex by sector. What it does say is that industry standards and codes of practice are relevant to assessing whether the standard was met, and that the price paid for the service is also a relevant factor in what level of care and skill was reasonable to expect. That means a pest controller working to BPCA’s Integrated Pest Management approach and industry codes has a stronger position to show reasonable care and skill than one working entirely off its own informal method, and a premium-priced service that turns out to be careless is judged more harshly than a bargain call-out doing the basics.
What you can actually do if the standard wasn’t met
If a service falls short of reasonable care and skill, the Act’s remedies (set out in the sections immediately following Section 49) generally point toward the trader being given a reasonable opportunity to redo the service at no extra cost before you’re entitled to a price reduction, rather than an automatic full refund. In pest control terms, that typically means requesting a proper follow-up treatment or re-inspection first – ideally in writing, referencing the original job and dated as close as possible to when the problem reappeared – before escalating to a claim for money back.
Building your case before you complain
Keep dated photos or notes of continued activity, the original invoice describing what was actually treated, and any written communication about what the company said it would do. None of that is required by law to make a valid complaint, but because “reasonable care and skill” is judged on the specifics of what was actually done, evidence of what happened on the day carries far more weight than a general complaint that “it didn’t work.”
What this means for a contract with a follow-up guarantee built in
Many pest control companies already offer a stated number of free follow-up visits within a set period as part of their standard terms, which can make it feel unnecessary to think about Section 49 at all. But a contractual guarantee and the statutory right aren’t quite the same thing – the contractual guarantee is whatever the company chose to offer, while Section 49 is a legal minimum standard that applies regardless of what the contract says, and can’t be excluded by it. If a company’s own guarantee has already expired, or never covered the specific situation you’re facing, the statutory right can still be the basis for a complaint where the original work genuinely fell short of reasonable care and skill.
Why documenting the original visit matters from day one
Because a later dispute often turns on what was actually done during the original treatment, it’s worth asking a technician, at the time, what product was used, which areas were treated, and what signs of activity they found – and keeping that information somewhere accessible, even if it’s just a note on the invoice. Households that only start gathering evidence once a problem has clearly returned are often working from a much weaker starting position than those who kept a simple record from the first visit onward.
The bottom line
You don’t need a special guarantee written into a pest control contract to have a legal right to a competently performed service – Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 already provides that automatically, and it can’t be excluded by the trader’s own terms. Knowing that changes the conversation from asking a company for a favour to holding it to a standard it was always legally required to meet.
Sources
- Legislation.gov.uk, “Consumer Rights Act 2015, Section 49: Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill” – legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/49