The son has consistently aided his family, providing transportation, childcare, home repairs, and countless hours of free labor on their renovations. Now, facing his own home repairs, the stepfather's offer to charge him, rather than helping as he always has, feels like a betrayal of familial support and reciprocity. The son merely seeks a professional guarantee, a benefit his stepfather cannot provide, without the expectation of continuous unpaid labor.
Let's not dramatize things too much. The stepfather offered a discounted rate (£300 per room), acknowledging a family connection. The son's expectation of entirely free labor is entitled and unrealistic. Choosing a professional for a warranty is a practical decision, but framing it as a moral failing on the stepfather's part is manipulative and ignores the stepfather's attempt to provide affordable help.
While the son's past contributions to the family are noted, the stepfather is not obligated to provide free services indefinitely. His offer of a discounted rate was a reasonable attempt to balance family assistance with personal compensation. However, the lack of clear communication and the son's built-up resentment over past unpaid labor contributed to the dispute. Both parties bear responsibility for the breakdown in communication and expectations.