service-recovery-follow-up

---
name: service-recovery-follow-up
description: Checks that whatever was promised after a complaint, a remake, a refund, a repeat booking, actually landed within the deadline the Consumer Rights Act 2015 itself sets, and keeps any later contact with that guest inside what the law allows without their consent, rather than letting a promised fix go unverified or turning a follow-up message into unlawful marketing. Use once a remedy has been decided and agreed, to confirm it happened and that any further contact is lawful.
---

# Proving the fix actually landed, and staying on the right side of asking again

A remedy decided is not a remedy delivered. This checks the promise against what actually happened by the legal deadline, and checks whether contact afterwards is a neutral follow-up or marketing.

## What it does

1. **Checks a refund against the deadline the Act sets.** Section 56(4): a refund "must be given without undue delay, and in any event within 14 days." This records the agreement date, the deadline, and when it actually left the till.
2. **Checks a repeat performance against the standard it was decided on.** Section 55(2)(a)-(b): "within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience," with the trader bearing "any necessary costs." A remake that took forty minutes is a promise kept late, and that distinction is recorded.
3. **Checks method and fee.** Section 56(5): "the same means of payment" used to pay, unless agreed otherwise. Section 56(6): "no fee." A refund by bank transfer when the guest paid by card, with no recorded agreement, fails this.
4. **Separates a check-in from marketing.** The ICO's test: "if your service message has elements that are direct marketing... it will count as direct marketing," while "general branding or logos" alone do not. A plain "did it arrive right" is a service message; the same message with an offer attached needs consent, or the narrower soft opt-in under regulation 22 of PECR 2003.
5. **Logs the outcome.** A pattern of refunds running late becomes visible across incidents, not discovered guest by guest.

## Then it checks

1. Every remedy has an outcome date checked against its deadline, not assumed.
2. Any refund is checked against payment method and the no-fee rule separately from whether it happened.
3. Any repeat performance is checked against the standard it was promised against.
4. Any follow-up message is classified before it is sent, with a lawful basis recorded if marketing.
5. A pattern of late or wrong-method refunds is visible, not buried per incident.

Any check fails: name it, redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop.

## Rules
- Public information only. Never invent a fact, a number or a quote. Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is.
- Never record a remedy as delivered without checking date, method, and fee.
- Never send a message with an offer attached without a recorded lawful basis.
- Never chase a guest more than once about the same incident.
- A working verification record for the owner to act on, and for a solicitor to check any marketing consent question; not legal advice.

## Built from
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, ss.55 and 56, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/55 (and /56), read 4 Nov 2026: steps 1 to 3.
- ICO, "Identify direct marketing", https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/direct-marketing-guidance/identify-direct-marketing/, read via search 4 Nov 2026: step 4.
- PECR 2003, regulation 22, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/22/made, read 4 Nov 2026: the soft opt-in behind step 4.

# service-recovery-follow-up

## You are given
A decided remedy from refund-vs-goodwill-decision or overbooking-recovery: `complaint_id`, `remedy_type`, agreement date, promised deadline, original payment method, and any reasonable-time standard. What actually happened: the date and method paid, or how the repeat performance was delivered. Any follow-up message, with Claude's classification as `service_message` or `direct_marketing`, and, if marketing, the chosen lawful basis or PECR route.

## Produce
Write into a `./service-recovery-follow-up-output/` folder:

1. `remedy-verification.csv` with columns: `complaint_id`, `remedy_type`, `promised_deadline`, `delivered_date`, `on_time`, `method_used`, `method_matches_original`, `fee_charged`, `reasonable_time_standard_met`, `verdict`. `on_time`, `method_matches_original`, `fee_charged`, `reasonable_time_standard_met` are each `yes` or `no`. `verdict` is `remedy delivered as promised` or `remedy delivered late or non-conforming`, naming the specific failure.
2. `follow-up-message-check.csv` with columns: `complaint_id`, `message_text_verbatim`, `classification`, `contains_offer`, `lawful_basis_or_pecr_route`, `opt_out_present`. `classification` is exactly one of `service_message`, `direct_marketing`. `contains_offer` and `opt_out_present` are `yes` or `no`. Any `direct_marketing` row with no `lawful_basis_or_pecr_route` recorded is listed first in `gaps.md`.
3. `pattern-report.csv` with columns: `month`, `total_remedies`, `on_time_count`, `late_count`, `wrong_method_count`, `fee_charged_count`. Counted from `remedy-verification.csv`, never estimated.
4. `gaps.md` - a numbered list of: any remedy with no `delivered_date` recorded; any `remedy-verification.csv` row with a `verdict` other than delivered as promised; any `direct_marketing` message with no lawful basis or PECR route, or no opt-out; any guest contacted more than once about the same `complaint_id`; and any month where `late_count` or `wrong_method_count` is rising against the prior month.

## Rules
- Codex checks dates, methods, and message classification against what was supplied. It never decides the remedy, never drafts the message, and never decides the lawful basis; those judgements are supplied to it.
- A `direct_marketing` message with no recorded lawful basis or opt-out is always flagged in `gaps.md`, never treated as ready to send.
- Never record more than one follow-up contact per `complaint_id`; a second attempt found in the data is flagged, not normalised.
- British English, GBP, DD Month YYYY dates. No em dashes.
- Every file ends: this is a working verification record for the owner to act on, and for a solicitor to check any disputed amount or marketing consent question; not legal advice.

## Return
The absolute path and row count of each file. Remedies delivered on time versus late, by method-match and fee status. Follow-up messages classified as marketing without a recorded lawful basis. Guests contacted more than once about the same incident. The current month's late and wrong-method counts against the prior month. The `gaps.md` item count.