Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout   Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout, report claims – business live | Business | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Britain’s largest water company is trying to avoid a potential multibillion-pound taxpayer bailout   despite giving out large dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to senior management UK water company dividends jump to £1.4bn despite criticism over sewage outflows WWW.FT.COM Payments include internal transfers between complex web of holding companies   In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers | Utilities | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Decades of underinvestment and bumper dividends have left the firm debt-laden and under investigation   ‘The whole thing stinks’: water firms to pay £15bn to shareholders as customers foot sewage bill | Water bills | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM With cost of cleanup to be passed on to bill payers, analysis shows they will also pay £624 more by 2030 to fund investor payouts    
    • Are you still claiming Tax Credits / Universal Credit? They will likely take a small monthly amount off , if you are
    • So much for protecting our borders - Guv all just dog whistles   Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to have budget slashed - Neal The Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration will have its budget cut by five per cent year on year, David Neal has revealed, Holly Bancroft reports. Mr Neal is giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in a one-off session on immigration after being sacked by James Cleverly. The home secretary said Mr Neal had “breached the terms of appointment and lost the confidence of the home secretary” after Mr Neal warned of “dangerous” failings by border force that he claimed were allowing “high-risk” aircraft to land in Britain without security checks. The Home Office had “categorically rejected” the claims, saying that Mr Neal “has chosen to put misleading data into the public domain”. You can read more here: Home Office sacks immigration chief after criticism of border security
    • "In an explosive revelation, Mr Staunton also alleged that the current Post Office CEO threatened to resign over a HR investigation into his own conduct. Mr Staunton said Post Office chief executive Nick Read had fallen out with the HR director “and she produced a document that was 80 pages in length” and there was just one paragraph in there about his own conduct and use of “politically incorrect comments”. Mr Staunton said Mr Read was “really quite upset” and threatened to resign a number of times. But just an hour before Mr Staunton’s testimony, Mr Read had denied - under oath - that he had ever having tried to resign."   I’m victim of smear campaign says sacked Post Office chair as he accuses CEO of lying WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Henry Staunton, sacked by business secretary Kemi Badenoch, gives evidence to Commons committee     see also from the post above "Carl Creswell, an official from the Department for Business and Trade said Tidswell had told Ben Tidswell that some board members might resign if Henry Staunton were not sacked)" Tidswell says he was right (See 11.14am.)"   So baden-ouch seems to be at the very least twisting the truth - no surprise there    
    • As Bazooka Boo said much of the PCN missing and it is the missing pieces that can help your case since the PCN is governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . If the wording does not comply,  you as keeper are not liable to pay the PCN. Even if you were the driver as Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person it will be pretty hard to prove that you were the driver. All it needs for you to know the whether the PCN is compliant is to post up the whole PCN front and back.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

John Lewis Damaged Kitchen Floor, Not Repairable, Refusing To Pay For Replacement - court claim raised


e21 Keith
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 174 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 bought a new kitchen appliance from John Lewis and paid for them to remove the old unit at the same time.

Delivery day came and I asked the delivery guys to take extra care not to damage the 2 year old kitchen floor which was unmarked (18 years of the warranty on the floor remaining). They dragged the old appliance across the floor damaging it and then dragged the new one across it causing scratches and gouges 7 metres long, they wrote on the delivery note that they had damaged the floor and took some photos.

I called the original flooring contractor, they said it couldn't be repaired and the entire floor would have to be replaced as the flooring was no longer available and even if it was there was no way it would match due to batch variations etc.

Eventually, after I emailed the CEO, John Lewis sent a company called Ecomaster to inspect the floor, Ecomaster produced a report for John Lewis that they refuse to give me a copy of, proposing that they would sand down the floor, tint it and apply lacquer. It's a textured vinyl floor so alarm bells started to ring as this didn't sound like a proper repair, the original flooring contractor just laughed at the suggestion. I went to the manufacturer who sent me a letter saying that this was not an approved repair method, the floor couldn't be repaired, it would invalidate the remaining 18 year warranty and needed to be replaced.

I've since tried to contact Ecomaster for further details but none of the contact methods they offer on their website have produced anything other than an automated reply. I've since done a bit of research on Ecomaster, they have a Trustpilot rating of 3.6 and a Googgle review rating of 2.7, I wouldn't want them to be working on my home even of they could offer a viable repair method.

Every flooring company I have spoken to have said the damage cannot be repaired and the whole lot needs to be replaced.  John Lewis have offered me a cash settlement equal to about 15% of the replacement cost of the floor which I have turned down as it doesn't begin to cover the cost of repairs. John Lewis say they won't pay for replacement to the area of floor which is undamaged and have said they have no further comment to make

I have considerable experience of dealing with motor insurance and the concept that you only pay for the repair to the damaged part of the car when it's written off is alien to me. If the car can't be repaired you write it off, my floor can't be repaired so It's a write off and needs to be replaced.

I've issued John Lewis with a Letter of Court Action and intend to follow it up by starting a Small Claims Court action in about 2 weeks.

I have also spoken to 2 Subject Matter Experts/Expert witnesses who have also stated the floor is not repairable and needs to be completely replaced but I haven't paid for their reports yet (the reports aren't cheap).

I'm confident that I can prove the entire floor needs to replaced and cannot be repaired. John Lewis have confirmed receipt of my letter of court action and say they have nothing to add at this stage, they have refused mediation. 

They haven't confirmed anything or denied anything, I have a signed delivery note stating they caused the damage and they have made a derisory offer that doesn't begin to cover the cost of repairs. Maybe they just don't believe anyone is prepared to take them to Court, I've heard they like to play a game of who blinks first and won't take me seriously until they receive the Court documentation?

On the face of it this seems quite straight forward: They damaged the floor, it can't be repaired, they need to pay for replacement. But am I missing something?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to John Lewis Damaged Kitchen Floor, Not Repairable, Refusing To Pay For Replacement - court claim raised

Slow down and don't start issuing proceedings yet.

Good careful preparation is essential

 

Send John Lewis an sar and one to ecomaster as well.

 

Get at least two written reports from independent experts which will assess the condition of the floor and also propose remedial action which may of course support your position that the floor needs to be replaced.

Then come back here.

In the meantime please post up here the letter of claim which you have sent them in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the very prompt reply.

I really get the point about careful preparation being key and I don’t want to jump the gun and make a simple mistake,

I can get the SARs off today

As far as the written reports go this is a little more difficult. I already have a quote from the original flooring contractor stating that’s it’s not repairable and needs to be replaced, I. Also have an email from the manufacturer saying the proposed repair is not going to work, would void the warranty and needs to be replaced. Finding an independent flooring expert is a little more difficult and costly, so far I have only found one who wants £800 for a report. Ecomaster are the only company suggesting a repair as remedial action, everyone else is stating replacement.

Im a bit reluctant to post my letter of claim here as it contains lots of personal information but I suppose I could redact it.

A bit of financial perspective, the cost of replacing the floor is just over £5500, although I have a second quote from John Lewis flooring for just under £6500. The area covered is about 50% of the downstairs of our home, we would have to move out to disabled friendly accommodation while the work is done at a cost of about £1000, plus independent reports at £800 each, Court and legal fees etc. I’m looking at a claim which could be just short of £10000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok it sounds as if you have enough written evidence to begin with.

The SARs will be very useful if they can produce the report that they are trying to conceal from you.

You certainly will need to have a very clear and detailed and supported view of the value of the claim including as you say the remedial costs and any other reasonably incurred cost such as rehousing for the duration of the work.

Please redact the letter of claim and post it here in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, thanks for your very prompt reply, I have posted the redacted pdf. You'll notice the estimated total costs exceed £10,000, this is just an estimate and in any case I'd keep it below £10,000 to get in as a small claim.

I'm just preparing the SARs. Can I be specific about what information I need them to include, such as emails between John Lewis, their insurers, Ecomaster etc.?

 

Redacted John Lewis-letter-before-small-claims-court-claim V1-1.pdf

Edited by Nicky Boy
Redacted missed name
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be specific about an SAR? Why give them clues?

Use our subject access request template. Alter it to suit your own circumstances but keep it as wide as possible. A generalised request is going to be far more effective and leaves far fewer loopholes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just looked to your letter of claim.

Unfortunately I understand that you have already sent it.

If I were you I would disregard it and start at zero.

A couple of points of detail – the legal expenses that you say you want to claim are not recoverable. Nor is your time in preparation.

"Distress" is not a recoverable head of damage.


I'm afraid that when you send a letter of claim like this, it simply make people laugh and you lose credibility.


I think it would look a lot better if you talk about the report being "concealed" by them rather than being merely "withheld".

There really are too many estimates. You need a proper quotation for the work – two quotations and then choose the cheaper of the two.

You will not be able to claim in advance for an independent expert witness. You will have to have incurred the cost first before you can claim it. In fact what eventually will happen when you take this to court is that the court will require that you appoint a joint independent expert witness – the cost to be borne by the loser.

If you are seeking alternative accommodation then you will have to produce two quotations for this and once again choose the cheaper of the two.

Get the quotations. Put together a more realistic and more certain view of the value of your claim and then let us know

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought...

The OP mentions claiming for "One additional pack of flooring to futureproof repairs, replacing the pack
we have for the existing flooring".

Does this mean that the additional pack was insufficient to effect a repair?

If so, shouldn't this be made clear in the claim?

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i did future proof myself by paying for an additional pack of 14 LVT planks, but the damage covers over 30 planks so there aren’t enough, the letter from the manufacturer also states that they won’t match due to so light bleaching the existing floor,. I’ve already made this clear to John Lewis but it’s a good point and I will make it clear when I submit my case to the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments on my letter of claim, I take on board all your comments. The original letter had a 28 day deadline, that was 14 days ago so I can issue a new one today with a 14 day deadline.

I already have 2 estimates, the second one is from John Lewis themselves and is £1000 more expensive, I've provided the cheaper one.

Alternative accommodation is difficult to find as it needs to be disabled friendly, have accessible parking and cater for our 2 cats and one dog, I've submitted the only one I could find within reasonable distance, I could submit another and rule it out on distance as my partner is unable to travel very far even in a car.

I understand that I can't claim for an independent witness in advance and I put the cost in as an estimate in case we had to go to Court. I was going to ask about how/when an independent witness is appointed. John Lewis have tried to argue that Ecomaster are Independent, however I don't believe they can be as they are a subcontractor to John Lewis and have quoted for the repair, in any case John Lewis have "concealed" the report. Ecomaster claim on their website that they are "independent" but I can't see that they can be in this case?

Are out of pocket legal expenses really not recoverable? I understand that "distress" is not claimable, but can I claim for time taken to prepare all the documentation and the inconvenience of having to move out of my home for 4-5 days etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would start off by making a detailed letter of complaint – not setting a time limit but providing them with the quotations and also your justification for choosing the one that you have opted for.
Also you say that you will need alternative accommodation – you should provide the quotations for that to them and also explained the justification for needing it and why you have chosen the particular solution that you have opted for.
Is your partner very clearly disabled? If it is not evident then it may be that a court would require some medical evidence and in fact you would make things easier for yourself now if you visited the doctor and asked your doctor to write a brief recommendation as to the appropriate quality of your accommodation if the proposed works are underway.
You are right not to accept the John Lewis expert as an independent witness – in particular because you say that they won't even reveal the report to you.
I suggest that you prepare a letter of complaint and post the draft here so we can have a look and give any tweaks necessary.

You aren't in a great hurry for this – a week or two extra won't make a lot of difference but good preparation will make a huge amount of difference.

As I have said, disregard your letter of claim. We will help you prepare another one and you will give them only 14 days. I have no idea why you wanted to give and 28 days anyway. Unless you have been taking advice from someone else like citizens advice??? Or the Which magazine??? Or were you simply feeling generous?

You say that John Lewis have made various responses including trying to say that the Ecomaster service is independent – please can you post that message from them here and also the message where they say that they will not reveal the report to you.

In terms of the additional expenses you are referring to – they are almost certainly not recoverable. You can add them if you want – let's see what you want to say – but in principle they are not recoverable but if you want you could add them in order to concede something to John Lewis later on if it comes to a negotiation.
Don't forget, that the more you inflate the value of your claim, the higher the level of court claim charges will be. Also, if the court dismisses part of the value of your claim then the court will also reduce the amount of costs to be awarded to you on a pro rata basis.
Better to be completely realistic about what you can do rather than hand victories to John Lewis.

Also I'm concerned that you have suggested in your letter of claim that you would submit to ADR – what ADR service do you have in mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lots to take in and respond to.

I'll write a new letter and post it here in a day or two.

The letter I sent was indeed a template from Which and ADR was part of the template, in any case John Lewis have declined the offer. I wasn't bothered about the timeline anyway so 28 days didn't bother me.

from the email trail I have with John Lewis regarding the independence on Ecomaster:

It remains the case that Ecomaster is independent of John Lewis. They will provide an unbiased report of any relevant issue we ask them to and, in turn, share their report and recommendations with us for review. I understand why you feel differently, but rest assured this isn't the case.

And their refusal to share the report 

For the avoidance of doubt, the report that's shared with us is an independent report and is not tailored to our requirements as you suggest. However it is for us to consider and use, and is not something we would look to share with customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, you had better start deciding for yourself where you are going to take your advice from.
We do everything here for free. We are volunteers and nobody gets paid.
If you take advice from multiple sources then they will simply be confusion and contradiction – and for ourselves, we may well be wasting our time trying to help you when you are not going to follow our advice.

Make the decision and please let us know. We are volunteers but we aren't here for a laugh.

When you refer to ADR – what you have in mind? I asked you that already but you haven't addressed this question.

Your post above is a little confusing. The fact that Ecomaster was chosen by John Lewis makes it not independent so far as I'm concerned. The fact that they have produced a report which John Lewis have declined to share with you makes it even less independent.
I see that they have apparently given you some explanation. We will deal with that in the draft complaint letter which you will be posting here soon.
It concerns me that you are giving 28 day deadlines and you don't know why – and I suspect that you don't know what ADR service you are referring to. All of this cedes control to John Lewis or anybody else who is far more experienced or far more careful than you are.

Step-by-step please

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have previously taken advice elsewhere but now I've found this very useful forum I'm not taking advice from elsewhere. I'm new here but I'm not here for a laugh either, please be gentle with me.

I think I've answered the question on ADR, I don't have anything in mind, it was in the template that I found elsewhere and I thought it was a requirement, that's all. In any case John Lewis have declined.

I take your point about 28 days notice etc. which came from the template I used, and I'm addressing that now by starting a new letter of claim which will supersede the less than accurate one I have already sent.

I've probably been a bit naïve in expecting better from John Lewis. I've dealt with them for decades and hoped for better.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have suggested that I write a detailed letter of complaint, but I already have a very long email trail with John Lewis setting out just about everything. In any case since I sent the letter of court action they are refusing to discuss any details, they just keep stating that their position hasn't changed and repeating their very low offer. If I send a letter of complaint I expect the same response. Also they are no longer offering a repair, just a sum of money. So I'm just checking whether this is a strictly necessary step or whether I can go straight to a revised letter of court action?

The Subject Access Requests went off to John Lewis and Ecomaster today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are starting from zero. Therefore send a letter of complaint detailing the basis of your complaint and what you're looking for.
It doesn't matter whether it was a response or not.

The important thing is that you are able to demonstrate to the court that you have put them on notice and you have made an attempt to resolve the problem before issuing proceedings.

I suggest that generally you follow the advice we give

Post the draft complaint here before you send it off

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Here's the draft of the letter of complaint. I have left out all personal details, names of companies other than Ecomaster and John Lewis, medical details and sums of money, I will add these in when I send the letter together with the various quotes and documents i refer to.

 

Dear xxxx

We ordered a Samsung RS68A8820S9 Fridge Freezer from John Lewis on 17 June, order no 404298754. Delivery was completed on 28th June and at the same time my old Fridge Freezer was removed by John Lewis.

Before delivery commenced we asked the delivery personnel to take additional care not to damage the kitchen floor because it was quite new and undamaged. Unfortunately the delivery personnel dragged both the old and new appliances across the kitchen floor, resulting in deep scratches and gouges approximately 7 metres long from where the fridge was installed to the back door and back again. we pointed this out to the delivery personnel who took photos and noted the damage on the delivery note.

It was some time before John Lewis appointed their subcontractor Ecomaster to visit our home and perform an inspection. We understand that Ecomaster provided a report on the damage caused by John Lewis to my property, but John Lewis have concealed this report from us. John Lewis state that the Ecomaster report recommends a repair process as follows. In turn John Lewis have proposed this solution to us:

Ecomaster confirmed their Surface Repair specialist will be able to, if it's not too deep, sand out the relevant area; remedy this with detail/tinting the area in question, and then applying lacquer. If the scratch is too deep they would use a colour match filler, sand the area, detail/tint as required and then lacquer the area in question.

We have contacted the original flooring contractor who advised the following:

The Moduleo Impress LVT vinyl flooring was fitted to the kitchen, small hallway and utility. The vinyl plank has a .55mm wear layer fitted on a screeded floor. A fridge /freezer has been dragged across the floor leaving a scratch/gouge across the kitchen. Having spoken with Moduleo technical department they have advised the whole floor be replaced. They cannot supply a perfect colour match to the existing so a small repair would be of a different colour to the existing. The flooring cannot be repaired on site as it is a vinyl finish.

I have also contacted IVC, the manufacturer of Moduleo flooring who advise the following:

At no time would we recommend or recognise this as an approved repair method for our Luxury Vinyl Tile Flooring. The lacquer layer is applied during production and is specific to our materials.  Any adjacent planks with a different lacquer will, in all likelihood, look different to the factory finish and will certainly have a differing durability/resistance. If this repair is carried out it will render the material outside of our warranty conditions and the installation would need to be covered by the repairer’s warranty. The duration of the warranty for this material is 20 years in a residential setting and I have attached a copy for your information.

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is a recognised repair method for wooden flooring, it is not a recognised repair method for the textured LVT flooring which we have installed in our home. We were later able to confirm through John Lewis that Ecomaster believe we have Amtico flooring fitted, however we informed John Lewis that we have IVC Moduleo on 26th July.

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is not applicable to the extensive damage caused to my flooring and the floor cannot be repaired, it therefore needs to be replaced and we provide 2 quotations of which the cheaper one is the preferred option.

The flooring fitted to our home extends the full width of the back of the house and from the front door to the back door, providing front and rear access as well as access to the living room, downstairs bathroom and staircase. In addition all the furniture and appliances from the kitchen and dining room will need to be removed, occupying all the space in the living room. As the remedial work is likely to take a minimum of 4 days we will have to move out of our home for this period, as we did when the flooring was first fitted. Ms Xxxxxx is disabled and cannot travel far (medical information to be added in the final draft) we have a large dog and 2 cats, limiting our choice of alternative accommodation. We provide 2 suitable alternative accommodation and propose the cheaper.

The total cost of resolving this matter is therefore £xxxx

Regards

Mr xxxx

Ms xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Dear xxxx

Complaint: reference number XXX

As you are already aware, we ordered a Samsung RS68A8820S9 Fridge Freezer from John Lewis on 17 June, order no 404298754. Delivery was completed on 28th June and at the same time my old Fridge Freezer was removed by John Lewis.

Before delivery commenced we asked the delivery personnel to take additional care not to damage the kitchen floor because it was quite new and undamaged. Unfortunately the delivery personnel dragged both the old and new appliances across the kitchen floor, resulting in deep scratches and gouges approximately 7 metres long from where the fridge was installed to the back door and back again. we pointed this out to the delivery personnel who took photos and noted the damage on the delivery note.

It was some time before John Lewis appointed their subcontractor  We complained to you and eventually you instructed Ecomaster to visit our home and perform an inspection. We understand that Ecomaster provided a report on the damage caused by John Lewis to my property. but   We have asked John Lewis to provide us with a copy of this report but you have declined and you prefer to have concealed this report from us. Rather than share the report, John Lewis state that the Ecomaster report recommends a repair process as follows. In turn John Lewis have proposed this solution to us:  you have told us that on the basis of the report you are proposing a solution which involves some remedial treatment of the damaged area rather than the full making good. Despite our entreaty, you have continued to conceal the report from us so we are unable to verify or comment on its findings.
Your appointment of eco-master was made unilaterally and without any consultation with us and so clearly it can scarcely be considered to be an independent report and of course we reject its findings. We also reject your proposed solution.

You are relying on the following quotation which apparently comes from the eco-master report:

Ecomaster confirmed their Surface Repair specialist will be able to, if it's not too deep, sand out the relevant area; remedy this with detail/tinting the area in question, and then applying lacquer. If the scratch is too deep they would use a colour match filler, sand the area, detail/tint as required and then lacquer the area in question.

Clearly what you're proposing is a patch up job and which is intended merely to minimise your losses rather than address all the damage which was caused by your delivery agents to our floor which was in pristine condition the time.

Taking matters into our own hands, have contacted the original flooring contractor who advised the following:

The Moduleo Impress LVT vinyl flooring was fitted to the kitchen, small hallway and utility. The vinyl plank has a .55mm wear layer fitted on a screeded floor. A fridge /freezer has been dragged across the floor leaving a scratch/gouge across the kitchen. Having spoken with Moduleo technical department they have advised the whole floor be replaced. They cannot supply a perfect colour match to the existing so a small repair would be of a different colour to the existing. The flooring cannot be repaired on site as it is a vinyl finish.

In an attempt to obtain a second opinion, I have also contacted IVC, the manufacturer of Moduleo flooring who advise the following:

At no time would we recommend or recognise this as an approved repair method for our Luxury Vinyl Tile Flooring. The lacquer layer is applied during production and is specific to our materials.  Any adjacent planks with a different lacquer will, in all likelihood, look different to the factory finish and will certainly have a differing durability/resistance. If this repair is carried out it will render the material outside of our warranty conditions and the installation would need to be covered by the repairer’s warranty. The duration of the warranty for this material is 20 years in a residential setting and I have attached a copy for your information.

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is a recognised repair method for wooden flooring, it is not a recognised repair method for the textured LVT flooring which we have installed in our home. We were later able to confirm through John Lewis that Ecomaster believe we have Amtico flooring fitted, however we informed John Lewis that we have IVC Moduleo on 26th July.

Clearly Eco master do not have sufficient experience or expertise to carry out a competent inspection or report on the kind of flooring we have installed all the damage which was caused to it by your delivery agents

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is not applicable to the extensive damage caused to my flooring and the floor cannot be repaired, it therefore needs to be replaced and we provide 2 quotations of which the cheaper one is the preferred option.

The flooring fitted to our home extends the full width of the back of the house and from the front door to the back door, providing front and rear access as well as access to the living room, downstairs bathroom and staircase.

In addition all the furniture and appliances from the kitchen and dining room will need to be removed, occupying all the space in the living room. As the remedial work is likely to take a minimum of 4 days we will have to move out of our home for this period, as we did when the flooring was first fitted.

Ms Xxxxxx is disabled and cannot travel far (medical information to be added in the final draft) we have a large dog and 2 cats, limiting our choice of alternative accommodation. We provide 2 suitable alternative accommodation and propose the cheaper. (This makes no sense)
in addition to the works required to make good the damage caused by your delivery agents to our floor, will be obliged to relocate for the period of the works. This will incur additional expenses all of which flow naturally from the negligence of your delivery agents. The expenses incurred will be foreseeable and reasonable.
We have obtained two quotations relating to the cost of suitable accommodation for the days during which we will be obliged to vacate our home. The quotations are included with this letter and of course we recognise our obligation to mitigate our losses and so we will choose the cheaper of the two.
Accordingly, I am expecting you to reimburse us to the tune of £XXX comprised of: –
detailed
detailed
detailed
detail


 

I look forward to hearing from you

yours sincerely

I've made some modifications. It is broadly what you have written that I have tweaked it.

Have a look. See if you agree. See if there's anything you want to change – remove – add – and post the draft here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear xxxx

Complaint: reference number XXX

As you are already aware, we ordered a Samsung RS68A8820S9 Fridge Freezer from John Lewis on 17 June, order no 404298754. Delivery was completed on 28th June and at the same time my old Fridge Freezer was removed by John Lewis.

Any customer would have expected the delivery agents to take care of the customers home but in any event, and before delivery commenced, we asked the delivery personnel to take additional care not to damage the kitchen floor because it was quite new and undamaged. 

Despite this, the delivery personnel dragged both the old and new appliances across the kitchen floor, resulting in deep scratches and gouges approximately 7 metres long from where the fridge was installed to the back door and back again. we pointed this out to the delivery personnel who took photos and noted the damage on the delivery note.

We complained to you and after receiving unhelpful responses and XX weeks after this damage had been caused, I was obliged to write directly to your CEOs office and eventually you instructed Ecomaster to visit our home and perform an inspection.

We understand that Ecomaster provided a report on the damage caused by John Lewis to my property. We have asked John Lewis to provide us with a copy of this report but you have declined and you prefer to conceal this report from us. Rather than share the report, you have told us that on the basis of the report you were proposing a solution which involves some remedial treatment of the damaged area rather than the full making good. Despite our entreaty, you have continued to conceal the report from us so we are unable to verify or comment on its findings.
Your appointment of eco-master was made unilaterally and without any consultation with us and so clearly it can scarcely be considered to be an independent report and of course we reject its findings. We also reject your proposed solution.

You are relying on the following quotation which apparently comes from the eco-master report:

Ecomaster confirmed their Surface Repair specialist will be able to, if it's not too deep, sand out the relevant area; remedy this with detail/tinting the area in question, and then applying lacquer. If the scratch is too deep they would use a colour match filler, sand the area, detail/tint as required and then lacquer the area in question.

Clearly what you're proposing is a patch up job and which is intended merely to minimise your losses and protect your own interests rather than address all the damage which was caused by your delivery agents to our floor which was in pristine condition at the time.

Taking matters into our own hands, have contacted the original flooring contractor who advised the following:

The Moduleo Impress LVT vinyl flooring was fitted to the kitchen, small hallway and utility. The vinyl plank has a .55mm wear layer fitted on a screeded floor. A fridge /freezer has been dragged across the floor leaving a scratch/gouge across the kitchen. Having spoken with Moduleo technical department they have advised the whole floor be replaced. They cannot supply a perfect colour match to the existing so a small repair would be of a different colour to the existing. The flooring cannot be repaired on site as it is a vinyl finish.

In an attempt to obtain a second opinion, I have also contacted IVC, the manufacturer of Moduleo flooring who advise the following:

At no time would we recommend or recognise this as an approved repair method for our Luxury Vinyl Tile Flooring. The lacquer layer is applied during production and is specific to our materials.  Any adjacent planks with a different lacquer will, in all likelihood, look different to the factory finish and will certainly have a differing durability/resistance. If this repair is carried out it will render the material outside of our warranty conditions and the installation would need to be covered by the repairer’s warranty. The duration of the warranty for this material is 20 years in a residential setting and I have attached a copy for your information.

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is a recognised repair method for wooden flooring, it is not a recognised repair method for the textured LVT flooring which we have installed in our home. We were later able to confirm through John Lewis that Ecomaster believe we have Amtico flooring fitted, however we informed John Lewis that we have IVC Moduleo on 26th July.

Clearly Eco master do not have sufficient experience or expertise to carry out a competent inspection or report on the kind of flooring we have installed, or the damage which was caused to it by your delivery agents

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is not applicable to the extensive damage caused to my flooring and the floor cannot be repaired, it therefore needs to be replaced and we provide 2 quotations of which the cheaper one is the preferred option.

John Lewis’ offer of £????? which included £150 of “goodwill” compensation was made with a 21 day deadline for acceptance and therefore expires XXXX date. This  sum is insufficient to effect any satisfactory repair to our flooring and full replacement is required. John Lewis also stated in their email of xxxx date that they would not pay for the replacement of undamaged flooring. Both of the reports we have submitted state that any form of localised repair will not match the adjacent flooring, the colour, texture, finish, materials used and wear properties will all be different, additionally any form of repair as suggested by Ecomaster will render the remaining 18 year warranty on the affected flooring void. A repair to the damaged area cannot be considered in isolation as it will not be possible to match and will have reduced life. The only viable repair method for the damage to our flooring is to replace all of it.

The flooring fitted to our home extends the full width of the back of the house and from the front door to the back door, providing front and rear access as well as access to the living room, downstairs bathroom and staircase.

In addition, all the furniture and appliances from the kitchen and dining room will need to be removed, occupying all the space in the living room. As the remedial work is likely to take a minimum of 4 days we will have to move out of our home for this period, as we did when the flooring was first fitted.

Ms Xxxxxx is disabled and cannot travel far (medical information to be added in the final draft) we have a large dog and 2 cats, limiting our choice of alternative accommodation.  Therefore, in addition to the works required to make good the damage caused by your delivery agents to our floor, we will be obliged to relocate for the period of the works. This will incur additional expenses all of which flow naturally from the negligence of your delivery agents. The expenses incurred will be foreseeable and reasonable. We have obtained two quotations relating to the cost of suitable accommodation for the days during which we will be obliged to vacate our home. The quotations are included with this letter and of course we recognise our obligation to mitigate our losses and so we will choose the cheaper of the two.
Accordingly, I am expecting you to reimburse us to the tune of £XXX comprised of: –
detailed
detailed
detailed
detail


 

I look forward to hearing from you

yours sincerely

 

We have accepted all the changes you suggested and add an additional paragraph in Red. John Lewis are now only making a cash settlement offer and are no longer propose the repair by Ecomaster. Also the report from Ecomaster (which we haven't seen) is for the wrong flooring.

Many thanks for all your help with this, my level of confidence that we will reach a positive outcome is increasing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made some additional edits in red – however it would be helpful if you would not redact the sums involved. I really don't understand why you would want to do this.

Also, I'm getting confused. Who are you proposing to proceed against – the delivery agents or against John Lewis? And if it's the delivery agents, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear xxxx

Complaint: reference number XXX

As you are already aware, we ordered a Samsung RS68A8820S9 Fridge Freezer from John Lewis on 17 June, order no 404298754. Delivery was completed on 28th June and at the same time my old Fridge Freezer was removed by John Lewis.

Any customer would have expected the delivery agents to take care of the customers home but in any event, and before delivery commenced, we asked the delivery personnel to take additional care not to damage the kitchen floor because it was quite new and undamaged. 

Despite this, the delivery personnel dragged both the old and new appliances across the kitchen floor, resulting in deep scratches and gouges approximately 7 metres long from where the fridge was installed to the back door and back again. we pointed this out to the delivery personnel who took photos and noted the damage on the delivery note.

We complained to you and after receiving unhelpful responses and 2 weeks after this damage had been caused, I was obliged to write directly to your CEOs office and eventually you instructed Ecomaster to visit our home and perform an inspection.

We understand that Ecomaster provided a report on the damage caused by John Lewis to my property. We have asked John Lewis to provide us with a copy of this report but you have declined and you prefer to conceal this report from us. Rather than share the report, you have told us that on the basis of the report you were proposing a solution which involves some remedial treatment of the damaged area rather than the full making good. Despite our entreaty, you have continued to conceal the report from us so we are unable to verify or comment on its findings.
Your appointment of eco-master was made unilaterally and without any consultation with us and so clearly it can scarcely be considered to be an independent report and of course we reject its findings. We also reject your proposed solution.

You are relying on the following quotation which apparently comes from the eco-master report:

Ecomaster confirmed their Surface Repair specialist will be able to, if it's not too deep, sand out the relevant area; remedy this with detail/tinting the area in question, and then applying lacquer. If the scratch is too deep they would use a colour match filler, sand the area, detail/tint as required and then lacquer the area in question.

Clearly what you're proposing is a patch up job and which is intended merely to minimise your losses and protect your own interests rather than address all the damage which was caused by your delivery agents to our floor which was in pristine condition at the time.

Taking matters into our own hands, have contacted the original flooring contractor who advised the following:

The Moduleo Impress LVT vinyl flooring was fitted to the kitchen, small hallway and utility. The vinyl plank has a .55mm wear layer fitted on a screeded floor. A fridge /freezer has been dragged across the floor leaving a scratch/gouge across the kitchen. Having spoken with Moduleo technical department they have advised the whole floor be replaced. They cannot supply a perfect colour match to the existing so a small repair would be of a different colour to the existing. The flooring cannot be repaired on site as it is a vinyl finish.

In an attempt to obtain a second opinion, I have also contacted IVC, the manufacturer of Moduleo flooring who advise the following:

At no time would we recommend or recognise this as an approved repair method for our Luxury Vinyl Tile Flooring. The lacquer layer is applied during production and is specific to our materials.  Any adjacent planks with a different lacquer will, in all likelihood, look different to the factory finish and will certainly have a differing durability/resistance. If this repair is carried out it will render the material outside of our warranty conditions and the installation would need to be covered by the repairer’s warranty. The duration of the warranty for this material is 20 years in a residential setting and I have attached a copy for your information.

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is a recognised repair method for wooden flooring, it is not a recognised repair method for the textured LVT flooring which we have installed in our home. We were later able to confirm through John Lewis that Ecomaster believe we have Amtico flooring fitted, however we informed John Lewis that we have IVC Moduleo on 26th July.

Clearly Eco master do not have sufficient experience or expertise to carry out a competent inspection or report on the kind of flooring we have installed, or the damage which was caused to it by your delivery agents

The repair method proposed to us by John Lewis is not applicable to the extensive damage caused to my flooring and the floor cannot be repaired, it therefore needs to be replaced and we provide 2 quotations of which the cheaper one is the preferred option.

John Lewis’ offer of £865 which included £150 of “goodwill” compensation was made with a 21 day deadline for acceptance and therefore expired on the 28th August. This  sum is insufficient to effect any satisfactory repair to our flooring and full replacement is required. John Lewis also stated in their email of 7th August that they would not pay for the replacement of undamaged flooring. Both of the reports we have submitted state that any form of localised repair will not match the adjacent flooring, the colour, texture, finish, materials used and wear properties will all be different, additionally any form of repair as suggested by Ecomaster will render the remaining 18 year warranty on the affected flooring void. A repair to the damaged area cannot be considered in isolation as it will not be possible to match and will have reduced life. The only viable repair method for the damage to our flooring is to replace all of it.

The flooring fitted to our home extends the full width of the back of the house and from the front door to the back door, providing front and rear access as well as access to the living room, downstairs bathroom and staircase.

In addition, all the furniture and appliances from the kitchen and dining room will need to be removed, occupying all the space in the living room. As the remedial work is likely to take a minimum of 4 days we will have to move out of our home for this period, as we did when the flooring was first fitted.

Ms Xxxxxx is disabled and cannot travel far (medical information to be added in the final draft) we have a large dog and 2 cats, limiting our choice of alternative accommodation.  Therefore, in addition to the works required to make good the damage caused by your delivery agents to our floor, we will be obliged to relocate for the period of the works. This will incur additional expenses all of which flow naturally from the negligence of your delivery agents. The expenses incurred will be foreseeable and reasonable. We have obtained two quotations relating to the cost of suitable accommodation for the days during which we will be obliged to vacate our home. The quotations are included with this letter and of course we recognise our obligation to mitigate our losses and so we will choose the cheaper of the two.
Accordingly, I am expecting
John Lewis to reimburse us to the tune of £6637 comprised of: –

 

Replacement flooring £5537
Alternative accommodation (current estimate £800-1000, up to date quotations will be attached to final draft)



 

I look forward to hearing from you

yours sincerely

 

I think I've filled in all the blanks, I don't have an accurate cost for alternative accommodation but I will perform a search on Air BnB.

I'm not proposing to proceed against the delivery agent and have made an amendment in red, unless I've made that less than clear elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem often to be referring to John Lewis in the third person as if you were addressing your complaint to somebody else.
I would have thought that if you were addressing this to John Lewis then you address in the second person.

I'm still confused

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point. The letter will be addressed to the individual that I have been dealing with and I though referring to them as "you" would make the complaint against that person rather than against John Lewis. I only got grade C in O level English Language and it was a long time ago. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the quality of English. The letter is generally fine. However I think you should be addressing John Lewis all the way. The person you're writing to is working for John Lewis and so you should address him as "you", meaning them – John Lewis.

If you want to say things such as "I expect better standards of John Lewis" – then John Lewis would be fine. Other than that things like – "you offered me a gesture of goodwill" – you is fine.

Don't worry about it too much I'm being a bit picky I suppose but we might as well get it looking good

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...