John Lewis trying to blame me for TV fault **SETTLED**

[Smith1976]

Thanks for your reply.
 

I just spoke to my partner at work and he has started to prepare for the small claim already, having had to take a company to court over a faulty mattress, he has been through the procedure before. 
 

I will let you know how we get on  

 

[BankFodder]

I suggest that you post up your draft particulars of claim here before you click it.

So start preparing your claim – you can save your work as you go and once we have checked the POC, you can send it off

[slick132]

5 hours ago, BankFodder said:

So thank you so familiar with it all so that you understand what the procedure is that you are embarking upon so that you know in advance rather than having to fill your way step-by-step

Bankfodder's dictation errors !!

 

It should say:-  "So make sure you're familiar with it all so that you understand what the procedure is that you are embarking upon so that you know in advance rather than having to feel your way step-by-step."

[Smith1976]

Hi. Here is the brief description of the claim for Money Claims:

 

I purchased a Sony Bravia TV from a John Lewis store in Southampton on 15.09.19 for £775 with a five year guarantee. On 09.01.21 the product failed to power up and was collected by a John Lewis representative for repair.

 

On its return, the TV was found to have a small amount of damage to its screen which when turned on renders the product unfit for use. John Lewis failed to take reasonable care of the item while it was under their control.

 

I have adhered to pre-action protocol before issuing this claim, having attempted to resolve the matter over the phone and by email with John Lewis customer care.  A letter of claim was issued by email and recorded delivery on 10.02.21, with John Lewis refusing to accept responsibility and full reimbursement on 15.02.2021.

[BankFodder]

It's a bit wordy.

How about this:

Quote

Reference number X X X.
The claimant seeks £775 – the replacement value for a Sony Bravia TV model number X X which the defendant undertook to repair but then returned to the claimant in a damaged condition and which has rendered the TV unusable.

 

[Smith1976]

Hi - I have attached our particulars of claim.  Apologies if it is rather long, but I didn't want to leave any important points out.  Please let me know if a .doc is easier to review than a .pdf.  Thanks.

POC draft.pdf

[dx100uk]

thats a witness statement not a POC.

 

BF's example is fine

 

you do not have to go into any enth detail till later

[Smith1976]

I will use BF's example on my Money Claim entry and submit this.  I thought I had to provide a further document with detail within 14 days.  I must have misread this and will read the post again. Apologies.

[BankFodder]

Just use the draft which I suggested. 

 

Do not tick that you will send anything else. 

This is all you need at this juncture 

[Smith1976]

Claim submitted  Thank you.

[BankFodder]

I've had a quick look at the particulars of claim that you have suggested in an attachment.

I would confirm what my site team colleague has said – this is not a particulars of claim.
Apart from anything else, it wanders off the plot, talks about your personal upset, and speculates. A particulars of claim should simply be factual and in the best examples, it simply outlines a very basic cause of action without giving many hints to the defendant as to the points they should raise in their defence.

When you give too much information in your particulars of claim you are effectively providing clues – cues – as to what they should be saying in the defence.

A very short particulars of claim such as you have filed gives pretty well no information – no help to the defence to formulate their defence – and it is highly likely that they will produce a reasonable details defence so that you will understand much better what points they are making and what you need to respond to.

The particulars of claim you have suggested on even a witness statement because your witness statement would mainly want to address the points which have been made in the defence in order to rebut them – and then go on to add some extra relevant information which should be factual.

So let's wait and see how they defend and then we will work on the next part.

[Smith1976]

Morning. Just an update to say I have received a Defendant’s N9 Acknowledgment of Service today from the solicitor working on behalf of John Lewis.

[BankFodder]

Is it an in-house solicitor or is it an external firm? If it's a firm then what's the name?

[Smith1976]

It’s external - Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP

[BankFodder]

Extraordinary that John Lewis are prepared to go to these lengths to defeat you. They will end up paying far more than it's worth.

I think one of their very weak points is that they themselves are referred to the plug say they were obviously aware of it – just as you were – and it beggars belief that they would then allow the television to be placed facedown on top of the plug of which they were aware.

Was the plug secured at all or was it just dangling around on the end of its cord?

[Smith1976]

We are also in disbelief it is going to court - but as we are 100 percent sure we aren’t at fault I’m not backing down. The plug wasn’t secured or wrapped - which would have been the same throughout transit by the looks of the video.

[AndyOrch]

Acknowledgment of service does not necessarily mean they wish to go to court...simply stops you getting a default judgment and allows them further time to possibly resolve the matter..IE Mediation....assuming they submit their defence on time.

 

Andy 

[BankFodder]

I think the your position is that if it had been packed reasonably for transportation, then the plug would not be loose. I think the fact that the plan was loose is extremely significant. I think that you are right to point to the fact that it was probably loose during its entire voyage to your home. It's clear from the video when they open the side door that the TV was rocking around and wasn't properly secured. I can imagine that the loose cable with the plug was probably hung over the top of the television – and unfortunately it was hung on the screen side and was then crushed between the TV and whatever else was next to it as the van made its journey.

I think your chances of success if this goes to court a very high. If it goes to mediation then they will try to knock you down – but obviously you will keep us updated as to developments. If they put in a defence then obviously we would like to see that.

In the meantime, I suggest that you go to the deliveries sub- forum and read up on some of the Hermes stories. Hermes regularly go to mediation and then settle in full. We've had a number of people now who have written excellent blow by blow account of the mediation journey – and I think that you will find that very helpful.

[Smith1976]

Will do. Thanks so much. I’ll keep you posted.

[Smith1976]

Hi I have now received the defence. Would you like me to post it here?

[BankFodder]

Yes please. In pdf format

[Smith1976]

_SCANNEDDOCS_166398470(1)_SIGNED defence Robold.PDF

[Smith1976]

It states very little other than the same story told by the repair team - although  now there was apparently a plug on the table and my partner asked for help carrying the tv.
 

I have noticed the sign off sheet actually appears to read ‘unchecked’ and no visible damage. To be honest you can hardly see the damage and would only really be visible upon the tv being switched on and checked with power. I’m guessing they did this as they fixed the power issue although it’s unclear at what point during the transport of the tv to our home the damage occurred.

[BankFodder]

Would you mind telling me where you are in the country? Are you near Southampton?

[BankFodder]

Where are you in the country? I guess you are in the Portsmouth/Plymouth/Southampton area.

It's curious isn't it?… The repair was apparently carried out by some outfit called Service Power and the delivery was carried out by some unknown courier company called Les Preston.

However, the Collection and Return Visual Checks report which is referred to at paragraph 3.3 of the defence was not signed by Service Power but was signed by Les Preston – apparently acting as a TV engineer.

In fact looking at the Internet, it seems that this person is not a courier at all. They are TV engineers based in Southampton.

It seems that Sonny Hughes who signed off the statement of truth for the defendants, doesn't really understand the story or who did what.

Of course they all saying that it left the engineers workshops in working condition. I'm sure it did.

On the other hand, if I'm right about Les Preston, then they are not couriers. They are not experienced or experts in delivery. They are actually the engineering company. Had it been a proper firm of couriers then I'm sure that they would have insisted that the TV was properly packaged. As you seen from the video, it was not properly packaged. Standing free and rocking around and not only that the plastic cover and either come off or it had to be put on before it was taken out of the van.

Somewhere in this thread, there is already some correspondence from them saying that they pointed out the plug to you as they were bringing in. Would you mind identifying whether is please and reproducing it here.

It's clear that if they were aware of the plug and they indicated it to you, then it beggars belief that they then allowed the TV to be placed on the plug.

All the evidence suggests that the TV was put into the van, it was loose and rocking around. It was incorrectly package for this kind of journey – and then the guest is that the mains lead was draped over the TV with the plug on the screen side and as the TV was rocking around against other items inside the van, the plug was banging against the screen or maybe was even crushed for a while against the screen – between the screen and some other item in the van and this caused the damage. It was not properly noticed because by the time it was taken out of the van, the blue protective plastic – which was only a thin plastic bag – had been pulled over the screen.

Soon you will get a DQ and will be at this point that you will have to decide whether or not to invest more money and to go forward to a hearing. Let us know when you get it