A321 Captain refused aircraft due to maintenance history and multiple discrepancies found during preflight.

Narrative

The flight crew was sent to ZZZ [airport] to reposition the above aircraft to ZZZ1 under part 91 rules after spending multiple days in ZZZ to fix multiple discrepancies on the #1 engine to include the fire detection system; pressure regulating valve; PRV (Pressure Relief Valve) hose clamp; and anti-ice duct damage. The first attempt to depart was cancelled as the IRS (Inertial Reference System) switches had been left in NAV by the maintenance crew and the #2 battery was drained and needed to be replaced. Crew was going to exceed duty time and went to the hotel. Flight rescheduled for XA00 the next morning. During preflight the F/O (First Officer) found multiple fasteners on the left engine loose or missing. While preflighting the cockpit the ECAM displayed an ENG (Engine) 1 LOOP A FAULT. Maintenance deferred the fault and I was not comfortable with the deferral as there was already a class 2 fault on the left engine deferred along with the extensive work history on the left engine. Therefore; considering all of these factors I refused the aircraft. After arriving home; I researched the aircraft history and a crew flew the aircraft to ZZZ2 and had an avionics vent fault prior to departure and an ENG 1 fire detector fault enroute. I think the pressure to get the aircraft back in service overruled assuring that the repairs had corrected all issues with the left engine. Suggestions: Although each discrepancy had been cleared individually; I was surprised additional MELs were allowed with the extensive issues on the left engine after looking at the entirety of all the malfunctions. Also the multiple errors of loose fasteners and draining the battery by the crew doing the work did not instill confidence that the work had been done diligently. I believe this aircraft should not have been released with any MELs on the left engine after the amount of work that had been done on it.