Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • your claim is against whomever fitted that parts.  
    • I would also take this opportunity to add that I don't really understand why you purchased an insurance policy for this watch – unless it offered you something like new for old, accidental damage or that the policy was transferable to a new owner in the event you decided to sell the watch. If there is not the features that interested you then you are perfectly adequately covered by your consumer rights contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and of course it would be unlawful for John Lewis to attempt to exclude or limit liability in case something happened to the watch and it ceased to be of satisfactory quality for a reasonable period of time. By and large these extended warranties are a waste of money
    • Sunak to new MPs at the Kings Speech debate. Rishi Sunak, in the king's speech debate, tells new MPs that "life comes at you fast" on the government benches. "Before you know it you end up with a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44," he adds.
    • Properly declared means that you declared the exact value of the item that you sent and by and large you are limited in the value that you can claim to that declared value.  It seems that you didn't declare the value of the accompanying insurance and so if you want, you can go ahead and claim it and we will help you but by and large although your chances of recovering the value of the watch are much better than 95%, The chances of you claiming the value of the lost insurance are much less.  It's up to you if you want to try . Please do the reading that we have advised and start preparing your letter of claim and post the draft here. I suggest that you think about posting up a draft letter of claim on about Sunday which will give you lots of time to do necessary reading  
    • The dealership is not the issue, the technician who I have known for a long time explained where the fault lies, the other garage for lack of a better word did a very  poor job of putting the brake pad on where the piston was not lined up correctly which caused uneven pressure on inner pad, the peg on rear of pad not sat in grove of piston.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Claiming against John Lewis - SOGA - *WON*


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6482 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

I've made a claim in the County Court against John Lewis plc for faulty goods under the Sale of Goods Act. Yesterday I received a date for the hearing (6 June) from the court. I wish I'd discovered this excellent website sooner, but thought I'd share my experiences anyway.

 

I bought a £600 computer from John Lewis which broke down when the hard drive failed. It was just over two years old. I took it back and quoted the Sale of Goods Act to them. At first they seemed very responsive and offered to have a look at the computer. They then came back to me with a repair quote of £240, and refused to incur this cost. A few letters were sent back and forth, but John Lewis remained adamant. They refused to get drawn into any discussion about my rights under the Sale of Goods Act and kept stating that I had "turned down their offer of an Extended Warranty" when I bought the computer, and the normal warranty had expired.

 

In January I issued a claim using Moneyclaim Online and it's taken a shocking three months for the court to set a date for the hearing, which is a further two months away (when the dispute finally gets resolved it will have been seven months since I took the computer back).

 

I've always been fairly confident of my chances of success in this case, as I simply can't accept it is reasonable for a brand new £600 computer to completely fail after two years.

 

Now I have to prepare evidence to submit before the hearing. I can't think of a great deal that I can use - just the original purchase receipt, quote for the cost of repair, and a copy of John Lewis's letter in which they state it is my fault for not buying an Extended Warranty (I can't imagine the judge will be too impressed by this!).

 

I'm quite shocked that a supposedly reputable company like John Lewis (who I keep hearing have been voted No.1 for customer service in various surveys) could completely refuse to acknowledge their liabilities under the Sale of Goods Act, and are prepared to let this case go to a hearing.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're doing absolutely the right thing, and it is unreal that JL are prepared to let you go to court. I wouldn't be surprised if they backed down shortly before actually going to court.

 

I think it's Bankfodder who had a fairly similar experience with PC World, if memory serves. Have a search and read up, it makes for interesting material.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly harddrives fail, very annoying if you got lots of data you need on them.

 

Not exactly sure you are on solid ground, but 240 repair bill is a joke.

 

Problem with big department stores is they can not fix it themselves, thus contracting out such repairs.

 

please put up there defence, need to see how they have got a court date set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid i'm with Russell, it isn't uncommon for a hard drive to fail after 2 years.

First Direct, £4031 Recovered

Halifax, £953 Recovered

MBNA Credit Card, £120 Recovered

American Express, £160 Recovered

Coming Soon......

Blackpool Council, £190 in unlawful parking tickets

Carstoppers. £50 from the cowboy clampers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, everyone, for your comments so far.

 

The main paragraph of John Lewis's defence is as follows (verbatim):

 

It is the Defendant's case that, while regrettable, the failure of the hard drive on the Computer after more than two years' use would be neither unusual, nor evidence in itself that the Computer was not of satisfactory quality when purchased, and insofar as the Claimant's claim appears to depend on the premise that the Computer was not of satisfactory quality when purchased, this is denied. It is therefore denied that the Clamant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief.

 

Firstly, I don't believe it's a valid defence to say that it's "not unusual" for £600 computers to break within a few years. If a product has an appalling track record (which this one does not), how is this a defence? It's just evidence that manufacturers are making crap products - it doesn't mean consumers' rights are eroded under the Sale of Goods Act. Does it?

 

Secondly, even if this were a valid defence, I dispute the facts contained in it. The brand of computer in question is Apple which is widely recognised as the most reliable of all computer brands. Which? magazine (the Consumers Association) recently confirmed this in one of their reliability surveys. I've personally worked with dozens of Apple computers for 12 years in my field of employment and can attest to their excellent quality and reliability.

 

Any more thoughts/suggestions greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you get any info from the website of the HD manufacturer?

You need to have documentary evidence from the manufacturer of the Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) for the model of hard drive fitted. This is always quoted in hours, so you will need a minimum MTBF figure of 17520 hours to sucessfully argue that it was not of satifactory quality.

 

JL are correct in their defense by saying that it is not unusual for a hard drive to fail, however the time period in which it can fail can be argued on the manufactures stated MTBF.

The advice I give in relation to benefits should be viewed as general advice and not specific to your individual claim circumstances. I cannot give specific advice on your claim as I cannot access the claim.

 

If you find the advice useful please click on my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, I think that this actually rather strikes at the heart of the whole Sales of Goods Act.

 

We meekly accept that it is not unreasonable for a HD to fail after 2 years. Well, I disagree.

I think we have got too used to shoddy goods to stop and think: Hang on, I paid 600 pounds for this, surely this product should last longer? Would you accept it from your £600 washing-machine, TV or fridge? After 2 years? Of course not.

Somehow, we have grown used to thinking that pcs are fragile things and that we somehow have to accept that they'll fail despite the high price tag. (Never mind the exorbitant mark-up)

 

There's 3 other things that bug me: First, JL seem to think it's OP's fault for not buying extended guarantee. In other words, we'll supply expensive but shoddy goods, it's your responsibility to make sure you don't have to pay for repairs, which is emb154_t.gif, frankly. Second, £240 to replace a HD? Hello? More than 1/3 of the original cost?

Third, let's say OP did buy extended warranty. Looking at JL's site just now, that would be £169. Either way, OP would have to pay nearly 1/3 on top of the original cost just to ensure that his goods keep on working. AND WE ACCEPT THAT.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

installspark - that's a very helpful suggestion which I will check out. Many thanks.

 

Although I do maintain that the fact that a product may have a poor reliability record is not a defence. For example, a retailer might be able to produce evidence that every single microwave oven made by a certain manufacturer had broken down within a year of leaving the factory (to give an extreme example). This proves the product has a 0% reliability record, but I still don't see how this is a valid defence.

 

Bookworm - yes, I totally agree with everything you just said. If we are to accept that a 2-year lifespan is acceptable for a £600 computer, it would mean the average person wanting a mid-range computer for life would have to repurchase the equivalent item about 30 times over in their adult life at a cost of about £18,000 (in today's prices)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Success!

 

I have today received an offer of full settlement, plus court costs, from John Lewis.

 

Here's what the letter says:

I write further to your claim against John Lewis plc in respect of an Apple Emac computer. I have assessed the merits of this claim from a legal perspective and am confident that, should this claim proceed to court, John Lewis plc would be successful in defeating your claim.

 

However, John Lewis plc prides itself in its commitment to excellent customer service. I am therefore prepared to settle this matter by payment to you of the £270.87 claimed in full and final settlement of your claim. This offer does not amount to an admission of liability by John Lewis plc and should be regarded as a gesture of goodwill.

 

I therefore enclose a consent order which you should sign and return to me... etc.. etc..

 

Well, that gave me a good chuckle.

 

To me that translates as "we think you've got a fair chance of winning the case in court, and we'd hate the bad publicity if that happened."

 

The line about excellent customer service is an absolute scream! If this offer is born out of goodwill and customer service, why didn't they make the offer five months ago when I originally complained instead of letting it get to court??!!

 

Nevertheless, this is a nice little victory for Mr Consumer and I'm very pleased by the outcome! Thanks to all on this forum who gave advice and support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on a job well done!

 

Just like the banks, "we know we could win this, but we love you guys too much..."

 

In the voice of a stroppy chav, WHATEVER

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the amount your claiming? Just its less than the Computer yes?

 

Yes, £240 was the full amount I claimed for the cost of repair (ie. fitting a new hard drive) as quoted by an independent expert of John Lewis's choice. Plus the £30 court fee I paid to start the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

Ahhhh, I saw that bit but thought you were wanted a refund!

 

Cool! Well done, andother victory for the little guy!

 

Lou xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the price of a hard disk drive, which have come down considerably in recent years (to about £0.45 per gigabyte of space for larger sizes, less for smaller sizes), you are paying for complexity, precision manufacture (tolerances between the read heads and the disk surface are measured in microns, and if exceeded at any time the hard disk would be destroyed. The disk is rotating at up to 10,000rpm and read heads can track from the inside to the outside of the disk, in single discrete steps of less than a tenth of a millimetre, in 4 milliseconds or less. Further to this the casing must be completely sealed from it's external environment; even a particle of cigarette smoke would be disastrously destructive.

 

I would not expect, given a knowledge of the inside of such a device, that it would last any more than 4 years in ANY circumstances, and I contend that 2 years is a reasonable life for such an item. The solid state components of a computer are entirely another matter; if the motherboard had failed after two years I would be VERY suspicious if they did not repair it, unless they could provide evidence of abuse or misuse.

 

In short, I am VERY surprised that Lewis chose not to defend this - they must have been going on the "any publicity on customer service is bad publicity" idea.

 

Congratulations!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

well it seems to me that john lewis are well within thier rights not to offer you a free repair. you will have had the option to take out thier extended warrenty within 28 days of your original date of purchase but you chose not to. JLP give you a 2 year warrenty covering parts and labour. not a 2 and a bit year warrenty if you complain for long enough. so you say you'll take them to court and, as a gesture of good will, because they value you as a customer, they decide to settle. saving you the embarrasment of being wrong. are you gratefull for this? no! instead you vist this website and winge to a bunch of people about the appalling service. shame on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well it seems to me that john lewis are well within thier rights not to offer you a free repair. you will have had the option to take out thier extended warrenty within 28 days of your original date of purchase but you chose not to.

 

I think you need to read up on the Sale of Goods Act before you post nonsense like this.

 

Warranties are in addition to your statutory rights - they do not replace them.

 

Also, if you had bothered to read the thread before you posted you would see that the OP did get their money back.

 

And this was going back to May, so what's the point of adding to it now?

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

christmasrallycag_468x60.gif

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well it seems to me that john lewis are well within thier rights not to offer you a free repair. you will have had the option to take out thier extended warrenty within 28 days of your original date of purchase but you chose not to. JLP give you a 2 year warrenty covering parts and labour. not a 2 and a bit year warrenty if you complain for long enough. so you say you'll take them to court and, as a gesture of good will, because they value you as a customer, they decide to settle. saving you the embarrasment of being wrong. are you gratefull for this? no! instead you vist this website and winge to a bunch of people about the appalling service. shame on you.

 

Some people do not have money to burn and expect expensive goods to last a reasonable time without the need for expensive repair. Had John Lewis done the right thing at the onset of the claim they wouldn't have had the expensive solicitors costs and still had a good customer on their records.

 

Even with expensive extended warranties they still try to get out of paying when claims are made.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah read the sales of goods act. very interesting read. reasonable length of time usually considered to be 30 days. john lewis extended warrenties are one of the cheapest ones you can buy. the reason i posted on this thread is because people will read this guys post and think they can do the same thing and put unfair pressure on the staff. do you really think that a company like john lewis knows less about consumer rights than you??? do you really think that a company this size and with such a high reputation for customer service would still exist if it was breaking the law? manufacturers offer a one year guarrantee john lewis extend this guarrantee free of charge to two years and stil the customer wants more! never happy some people. companies don't have money to burn either mate. proceedures exist for a reason. and the sales of goods act protects retailers as well as consumers. and i am aware that op DID get his money back if you bothered to read my post that is "settled" as in gave in and gave the customer exactly what he wanted. so this dude gets better treatment than al other customers. and still comes on here bragging to you all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah read the sales of goods act. very interesting read. reasonable length of time usually considered to be 30 days.

 

Well I don't know what you've been reading but there is certainly nothing to suggest that a reasonable length of time for an item to last is 30 days. You think somebody spending £600 on a computer should expect it to only last 30 days? I would expect 3 years as an absolute minimum, and I'm sure a court would agree.

 

do you really think that a company like john lewis knows less about consumer rights than you???

 

Maybe, maybe not. But it is clear that they either don't know, or they are pretending they don't by neglecting their duties as the retailer to deal with faulty item.

 

do you really think that a company this size and with such a high reputation for customer service would still exist if it was breaking the law?

 

Yes - why wouldn't they? We all know the banks act outside the law on a daily basis, so why not a company like John Lewis?

 

so this dude gets better treatment than al other customers. and still comes on here bragging to you all.

 

That's the whole point - this "dude" decided they weren't going to let John Lewis get away with fobbing them off, and ensured they acted in the correct manner, according to the Sale of Goods Act.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

christmasrallycag_468x60.gif

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

he wasn't fobbed off was he???? he got exactly what he wanted!!!!! not exactly fobbing him off what does this guy want???? what do you want????

look, john lewissupply a 2 year parts and labour guarranteeafter that expires you are no longer covered. in court he would have to provethat the goods were faulty from day one OR that the goods have not lasted a reasonable length of time. Hard drives on computers do not have a never ending life and depend upon customer use which is highly subjective so te case WOULD have gone in jls favour as the cust couldn't prove how much he'd used it.JL aren't a company who would flowt the law. you suggesting this is actually bordering on liablistic so i would be careful! and if JL were going to lose the court battle then they wouldn't hae even let the customer take it that far. jl pride themselves on good customer service and only gave the cost of repair as a gesture of goodwill. if this, and i'll say the word again as it must annoy you so much, "DUDE" had any once of decency in him he would have taken that goodwill and said no more about it. the fact that he took it and is still taking the mick out of the company suggests to me 2 things

1 he is never going to be happy with theservice and

2 he has no self respect as he accepted the terms ofered to him. if it meant that much to him he would have told john lewis to stick their offer.

instead he took it and is still not gratefull.

who are you anyway? his solicitor?

replying to this is futile as i shant be commenting on the matter futhur. this is as a result of me having a life and better things to do on a wednesday night

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is as a result of me having a life and better things to do on a wednesday night

 

John Lewis are no different to other large organisations. They receive a complaint and can't do anything about it until proceedings are issued, then with the strength of their bank balance instruct their solicitors in an attempt to frighten off the challenge by the little man.

 

Whaen they realise that the little man has not been frightened off by their half competant solicitors they capitulate.

 

In the last 12 months I have been involved in actions with a company whos anual turnovers have been 1000 times more than John Lewis, they thought the same and lost in the High Court. The Ignorant against the Learned and the Ignorant won the day.

 

In the present case the minnow kept his cool against the shark and the advice from the solicitor who gets paid win or loose was for John Lewis to pay up or face a David and Golieth episode in the local CC.

 

BTW Reality Check, are you connected to John Lewis in any way?

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most hard drive manufactures give a 3 year warranty on hard disk drives.. Check the manufactures website.. Maxtor and Western Digital def do. Ive sent many dead drives back for free replacement..lol I work in Computer industry so get a few faulty ones from customers etc..

Lloyds TSB -PPI - Full refund . 05/09/06 :D:p (As Seen on TV) :p

Halifax settled in Full.. :D 22/09/06

TSB First Claim SETTLED IN FULL 19/10/06 :D

Second Claim to Lloyds TSB - Settled in Full

Firstplus - early settlement interest charges - Challenged the use of the rule of 78 - SETTLED IN FULL 12/1/07

PPI - GE Money / Purpleloans / Firstplus - Now Settled after 1 year long hard fight.

 

 

 

If my post has helped you, please click the scales! :grin:

 

Anything said is my opinion and how I understand the law, always consult professional legal advice before taking something to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6482 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...