Thread: John Lewis TV 5 Year Free Guarantee

Is the £250 the difference in price between what you paid and the new TV?

It's not a bad offer...they are not obliged to give you the other set for the same price, nor are they obliged to repair the set if it is going to cost a ridiculous amount. BUT....if they are unprepared to repair it, then they need to give you a replacement(which they cant) or a refund. They should definitely offer a full refund. At a push, accept their offer, buy the new set(demand a receipt), and take it back a couple of days later and get a full refund. Insist that your initial method of payment for the TV is shown on the new receipt.

My apologies...I misunderstood what you were after, thought you wanted a refund. So what DO you want them to do? What else do you expect them to do? In the sector, John Lewis have a reputation for offering some of the best customer service around, and their offer to split the difference for a more expensive TV seems to confirm this...it is an excellent offer.

Well, IMO, it's not OP's fault that JL sold him a sub-standard item, and it's not his fault either that they no longer sell the identical set, so why should OP be out of pocket exactly?

Having said that, I certainly would go for the full refund, and go shop for a new TV, whether at JL or not.

OP is not out of pocket. OP is getting a better tv, and paying only half as much as he would have to. OP has been offered a full refund, and has refused. You cannot say fairer than that. There is no way on earth you can persuade me that JL should, legally or morally, offer him a TV worth £500 more gratis.

I beg to differ.

Op paid presumably a large amount of money for an item which failed within 5 months of purchase.

Item got taken away and returned still faulty. SO now, OP has been deprived of the enjoyment of his expensive item for days or weeks.

Now because within 7 months of buying item, JL are no longer stocking the same item (not exactly OPs fault or responsability, is it?), OP should pay £250 to get a replacement?

If JL had such good customer services, they should have by now offered OP the better TV with an apology, frankly.

And I can tell you that if it had happened to me, that is exactly what I would be pushing for. Because at the end of it, JL have supplied an item which can no longer work, and can not replace it with an equivalent.

I can point out that an awful lot of companies state that in case of being unable to supply a certain item, they will supply equivalent or better at no extra cost. I fail to see why JL shouldn't do the same if they're that keen on keeping their customers?

"And I can tell you that if it had happened to me, that is exactly what I would be pushing for. Because at the end of it, JL have supplied an item which can no longer work, and can not replace it with an equivalent."

No, so they have offered a refund, which is all they legally have to offer. This is where consumer pressure groups fall flat on their face, when they start demanding the earth, which no company should be obliged to give.

"Now because within 7 months of buying item, JL are no longer stocking the same item (not exactly OPs fault or responsability, is it?), OP should pay £250 to get a replacement?"

No, she should not...as a goodwill gesture they have offered to pay £250 towards the cost of a better(not a REPLACEMENT) TV. They have given that option or a refund.

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Having said that, I certainly would go for the full refund, and go shop for a new TV, whether at JL or not.

I refer you back to what I said in the first place... Simply because I wouldn't trust a company which, on THEIR failure to provide a reliable product, then expect the customer to pay extra.

BUT if for whatever reason, the company in question were not prepared to refund, then I most certainly would not expect to be the one to have to pay extra.

You quote me, yet fail to respond to the last part:

an awful lot of companies state that in case of being unable to supply a certain item, they will supply equivalent or better at no extra cost.

As for "consumer pressure groups fall flat on their face", I think that you'll find that, far from it, this forum's members have been rather successful in getting what they asked for when asserting their consumer rights. Thank goodness for that.

In the end, all we can do is advise. OP will do what he/she wants. My personal view is that if we let companies dictate the pace, as they have done for so long, they'll keep on flouting statutory rights, SOGA, for as long as they can get away with.

They are not EXPECTING them to pay extra, they are offering a goodwill gesture. He has also been offered a refund. I agree that if the company were not prepared to offer a refund, they should certainly not then say he needed to pay extra. But as they have also offered a refund, I would say that the offer they have made is an unneccessary one(on their part), and over and above what they need to offer, and what most would offer.

Having worked for two of THE major retailers in the high street, and knowing many people who work for others, I can tell you that the vast majority of retailers, and certainly the ones I have worked for, will not offer a better item for no extra cost. And you are right, retailers should not flout SOGA, but JL clearly are not in this case. My point overall is that a "fair deal" has to be fair for both sides - if it is unfair(so to speak) on the retailer, it will hit us all where it hurts with higher prices.

We may have to agree to disagree on this Bookworm - I certainly understand your point of view, I just happen to disagree with it...maybe because I have spent too long on the other side of the counter!

Bit late here, but just to say that I agree with Mr Shed here, JL do NOT have to offer a replacement higher price/higher spec item for free as a consumer cannot have betterment. If they can't physically replace like-for-like, they can offer a full refund (in this case - had there been more use of the product it would be a partial refund) and that is all they have to do.

If the consumer does not want the full refund, but wants a TV, but the only one available costs considerably more - then it is reasonable to expect the consumer to meet the difference in value.

That is how a court would see it.

I don't normally disagree with Bookworm though