Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Jessops - Canon Lens Replacement/Refund


aeloen
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4835 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I was wondering if I could get some advice regarding a photographic purchase from Jessops in June last year (still under manufacturers warranty).

 

The item was a £1260 Canon Professional Lens (EF 100-400mm L f4.5/5.6 if you are interested).

 

The item has only had light amateur use and has always been well looked after, cleaned and kept in the supplied case when not in use.

 

In August 2010 I had to take it to the Canon repair centre in Borehamwood for two (related) reasons. Debris had built up on the inside of the front element (dust in the lens) and also the Lens hood had never sat correctly. They replaced the front element and subsequently I have had no problem with dust and the lens hood fits perfectly. This was repaired under warranty.

 

In October 2010 I again had to take it to the Canon repair centre because the Image Stabaliser Switch Assembley had failed (the switches had disintegrated, so I couldn't turn the Image Stabiliser on or off). Again this was repaired under warranty.

 

There is a zoom locking mechanism which tightens to allow you to lock the zoom at a particular range (for example if you are taking distance photographs from a tripod). At the weekend this jammed several times. When it was jammed, I could also feel the focus ring grating inside. Although I managed to un-jam this I now feel the need to take it to the repair centre again to get the locking mechanism checked/replaced (it should never jam in the first place!)

 

This is supposed to be a pro series lens and I feel that three distinct failures to occur in less than a year is unacceptable. I spoke to my local Jessops store about getting a replacement (I don't want a refund, I want a copy of the lens that does not fail regularly) and they said that all they can offer through the store is to send it away to Canon for repair (which I can do easily myself).

 

If I do this, and get it repaired again, I have no guarantee that further failures will not occur with the lens - of course you never have this guarantee, but I am 3 months away from my manufacturers warranty from expiring. Given the history of this lens, this does not fill me with confidence. I'd rather have a replacement lens with a new 1 year warranty..

 

The store advised me that I'd have to talk to customer services on the phone so I am going to do this today.

 

However, I was wondering where I stand in this situation in terms of my rights?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Additional info: I have repair invoices for the last two times I had to have the lens repaired, original receipts, box and packaging.

Edited by aeloen
more info
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is unacceptable with this grade of lens even in professional use. I recommend that you take note of the serial number and ask for a replacement. Point out that dealing with the problems that you have had with the lens has cost you considerable amount of your time and time is money. If you did not have a replacement when yours was away getting repaired then point out to them that you have lost the use of that lens for the period of time it was away being repaired. Canon are general very good but they will keep sending back this sick lens to you unless you put you foot down. I have had similar issues with another camera manufacturer and in the got my money back and at the end of the day it may be better to insist that you get your money back. If they start getting stroppy ask them what is their local trading standards office. The best of luck .

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS Another tack would be to complain that you now suspect that the lens was not a new lens when you purchased it but a refurbished one because of the number and the nature of problems that you have had with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I spoke to Jessops Customer Services and to Canon Repair Centre this morning.

 

First up, Jessops. They advised me to take the lens back into store. The store would then send it away to Canon for repair and get an engineering report. Once they have received this they will 'be able to make a decision,' on what to do. They advised this would take 4-6 weeks..

 

I asked what the possible outcomes could be as what I don't want to happen is for it to be repaired and then sent back to me - I'll have an additional 6 months warranty on what was repaired, but not on the whole lens (so if the same fault reoccurs I'm covered, but if a different fault occurs I am not..). They said they couldn't say and that they'd just have to 'make a decision when the report comes back.'

 

I explained that I had two previous engineers reports for different faults and asked if this would be sufficient - they said no and they'd have to send it away themselves.

 

I then spoke to Canon repair centre - I live near the repair centre so when I've had repairs done before I can get the item back in a couple of days. I explained the situation and they were generally sympathetic - though they did note that the retailer should be liable through SoG Act, but I explained I didn't want to be without it for 4-6 weeks.

 

They said I could bring the lens down and speak to one of the engineers there to see what they can do.

 

What do you think my best course of action would be?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to get more information. The most useful source would be the Canon lens forum on dpreview.com. They will be able to tell you if there are any ongoing problem with this lens model and advise you if the dust behind the front element is a known issue . My view is that this lens may have been a display and demonstration unit that should not have been sold a new, or that it has been refurbished and with use dust retained in the body of the lens migrated to the front element and that the ongoing problems with the lens are not going to go away.

 

Put a complaint through to trading standards once you have some information.

 

No verbal agreements from now on with canon or jessops everything in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dust in the lens is a known 'issue,' which has no appreciable impact on the IQ of the lens. This was not so much the issue, but there had been significant build up very quickly and also the lens hood would not fit on the end of the lens properly, hence the first trip to the repair centre.

 

So I took lens down to Canon Repair Centre. Not completely happy, but this is the situation.

 

Engineer took a look and came to have a chat with me – he couldn’t find any fault with the locking mechanism and we couldn’t reproduce the problem (typically.) He said they cannot do replacements through the repair centre, it has to be done through the retailer.

 

On the plus side, he said he would replace the front of the lens assembly with a new part so hopefully I shouldn’t have any issues with it again. He also said that Jessops use that repair centre, so if I had taken it to Jessops they would have received it, found no fault and sent it back to Jessops with a ‘no fault found,’ note. So this wouldn’t get me anywhere with Jessops.

 

So I’m having the front of the lens assembly replaced, I will also get an invoice for this ‘repair.’ Hopefully, once I get this back, I can take this and the other repair invoices down to Jessops as further evidence of the unit being inherently faulty and try to demand a refund/replacement.

 

Best course of action with Jessops once I get the lens back with invoice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jessops have form with the local trading standards it might help but anyway contact trading standards and get a case going on the basis of the lens not being new when you bought it Re the dust issue and the series of repairs that have had to be carried out on it. If Jessops come back with dust ingress being a know issue with the lens then the lens is not fit for purpose. Throw everthing at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...