Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The right to mitigate losses is being worn away by JL's negligence. OP also has the right to have their guarantee fulfilled at little inconvenience to themselves.   By disregarding the guarantee JL have effectively given up their "claimed right" outlined in the guarantee to be the executive decision maker as to whether the guarantee is fulfilled by way of repair or replacement with a TV of equivalent specifications and thus disregarded their opportunity to mitigate their own costs.   As outlined in the guarantee the OP has the right to both options.   Given JL's unreasonableness it could be deemed entirely reasonable for OP to feel it is less inconvenient to purchase a new TV with equivalent specifications. The new TV will come with a fresh set of statutory rights. OP will be able to at receive some continued albeit diminished benefit from their faulty TV until the replacement arrives. If the replacement TV turns out to be faulty it can be returned at little cost or inconvenience. This is in contrast to the significantly inconvenient option of arranging to have the TV repaired which involves. Arranging for collection. Risking paying for a repair with no guarantee of success. Awaiting the TV to be returned. In the meantime OP receives no benefit at all from the ownership of the faulty goods.   Rather than being instantly out of pocket and in the position of having to risk a claim to be restored to their original position (despite being very likely to succeed), a better option would be to locate a TV of equivalent specifications and bring a claim for that amount.   Should JL continue to flaunt its own guarantees then JL is unlikely to be successful if they then choose to contest the amount claimed by the OP on the grounds OP should have diminished their costs when JL had their own opportunity to do so.
    • You should file something like this -   1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].   2.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.   3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant broke the terms of a contract with the Defendant.   4.  The Defendant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.    5.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Points (2) & (3) are catch-alls, they can be fleshed out at WS stage to include bye-laws, prohibition, you not being the driver, etc.   I see you have till 1 June to file the defence, so don't do it now, hang on and see if others suggest to tweak the above.  Don't file at the very last minute though, in case MCOL has a hissy fit!   
    • John Lewis have already told me that they cannot do anything or contribute to the repair via the manufaturer LG, as their guarantee explicitly states that 'screen burn' is not covered.   To be fair to them, on the back of my receipt it does have a list of exclusions including "image ghosting or screen burn".  The issue is that their repairer has incorrectly stated in his report that the fault is due to customer misuse/screen burn, and therefore it is not included in their guarantee and they cannot help.   LG the manufacturer have sent me an email where they state "...based on the nature of the issue that the unit has developed, the outcome is a Panel fault issue which has been confirmed by our technicians after a review of the images you provided..."  and they offered to repair it for £200.  So there is disagreement on the cause of the issue between the retailer and the manufacturer too, with JL conveniently deeming it something that is excluded from their guarantee.  John Lewis as mentioned previously are holding onto this engineer report as gospel and refuse to budge.  I understand that more recently they offer an additional extended warranty at a cost on televisions, which DOES cover screen burn, but obviously this is no use to me.    
    • I agree. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. I had thought that the whole matter had been referred to the repairer by John Lewis   On the other hand, if John Lewis has washed their hands of it – then I think a letter to them explaining that you are going to mitigate your loss by having the set repaired by the recommended repairer and that you will be pursuing them afterwards for your expenses – in view of their lack of interest. I think that will cover everything
    • @BankFodderI agree should I mention the new crime reference number in the email ?  I will draft response and put it on here before I email it across 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2776 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

Why is the DWP contacting your employer? Were you on the Work Programme, or are you doing part-time work while claiming a benefit?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can prevent them doing this, there are a number of reasons some more serious than others why they might to this, we would need to know why they want to do this and why you think they should not!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Hello all,

Is there a form or a letter I can send to the DWP to withdraw consent from them in terms of contacting my employer?

 

 

It's just not information I would like them to be able to access.
You not being very clear why you don't want them to contacting you employer.

 

What is it you want to hide from them ?

Edited by 45002

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just not information I would like them to be able to access.

 

You can't, in general, demand that the DWP does not contact your employer. Just like HMRC, they're a government department and have certain powers under the law. If you could be more specific about why you don't want the DWP to contact them, we might be able to help.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...