Panasonic & John Lewis receipt farce

lunavega

On December 20th 2010 my wife bought a Panasonic digital camera from John Lewis, Cambridge as a Christmas present for me. She paid for it on her bank debit card and got a till receipt but no guarantee reference documentation even though it cost over £280, so therefore it was not registered on the John Lewis customer database system (as I believe it should have been).
The camera has now developed an intermittent fault which doesn`t stop it working but causes the lens cover to stick half open allowing photos to be taken but only through a narrow slit.
The camera is still within the Panasonic 1 year warranty period but, unfortunately, we cannot find the sales receipt.
John Lewis say that due to data protection rules they do not hold records of sale beyond 6 months, so therefore cannot reproduce the sales receipt and without this piece of paper the authorised Panasonic repair engineers will not accept the camera for repair under warranty.
We have my wifes bank statement detailing this purchase but apparently this is not acceptable, by Panasonic, for repair under warranty.
John Lewis themselves do not doubt the veracity of our ownership nor the validity of the warranty against this camera but they have no control over the repair company policy of NO RECEIPT, NO REPAIR.
John Lewis also stated that if this had occurred within 6 months of purchase not only would they have still had the proof of purchase in their records but that they would have exchanged the camera with no quibble.
I spoke with Panasonic UK and although their records showed that I had registered the camera on the Panasonic website just after Christmas they were still not at all helpful, again citing the mantra NO RECEIPT, NO REPAIR and not feeling in anyway inclined to assist us even as a gesture of goodwill.
No one seems to doubt our ownership but we are unable to use the unexpired warranty for repair of this camera due to lack of the all important sales receipt.
It appears that we will have to pay the servicing/repair costs ourselves even though the camera is still within the Panasonic warranty repair period.
From this I would say to folk out there, do not lose the receipt.
Proof of purchase through bank statement only seems to work for a limited period of time and then only for item exchange, not repair!
If buying warrantied goods from John Lewis insist that it be registered on their customer database, don`t just take the sales receipt. In that way the sale will be permanently documented.

visidigi

all you require is proof of purchase, under UK legislation the bank statement is enough proof of purchase. This is John Lewis's problem to solve, not Panasonic - you need to take the camera in to John Lewis, prove the purchase by showing the statement and let John Lewis resolve the problem.

What JL do is not your concern, they need to either repair, replace or refund for the purchase if defective (officially you need to have a report to prove if inherent or not, but if you speak nicely to JL I doubt they will push for this - if your store won't help you, try another, you have nothing to lose as you already know its not on the JL system.)

McKneff

Give trading standards a ring, I'm fairly sure that a bank statement is still proof of purchase. Company policy does not and can not over ride UK law.

Just a tip for the future.
Whenever I buy anything like this, pop the receipt in the box, put the box in the loft, garage etc for the guarantee period. If you do it with everything then you'll know exactly where every receipt is without even thinking about it.

Good luck with trading standards, and as far as i know, Your contract is with John Lewis, not the manufacturer

BlueAngelCV

McKneff wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that a bank statement is still proof of purchase. Company policy does not and can not over ride UK law.

I'm not disputing what you're saying but do you know why this is? It seems to me that a bank statement only shows that you purchased something from a particular shop, not the item in question.

bod1467

If it is for the exact amount then it is fairly incontrovertible evidence.

meer53

Get your wife to contact her card issuer and ask them to request a copy of the receipt. She might have to pay for it as it's usually only ordered in a dispute but i'm sure if she explains the problem they'll understand. I've never heard of a retailer saying they don't keep copies of sales over 6 months old.

meer53

bod1467 wrote: »

If it is for the exact amount then it is fairly incontrovertible evidence.

Not necessarily, the OP's wife could have bought more than one item for the same amount.

CoolHotCold

Data protection what?

Since when was it illegal to have a database of previous orders.

Gak, someone better call Amazon and ebay as I can see what I've previously purchased in the last few years.


Show your bank statement to John lewis and tell them that your contract is not with Panasonic, it is with them and you want them to deal with it.

POPPYOSCAR

Have you tried writing to John Lewis HO?

We got nowhere with the branch when we had a problem with an electrical item. A letter to HO changed that.

bobajob_1966

visidigi wrote: »

all you require is proof of purchase, under UK legislation the bank statement is enough proof of purchase. This is John Lewis's problem to solve, not Panasonic - you need to take the camera in to John Lewis, prove the purchase by showing the statement and let John Lewis resolve the problem.

What JL do is not your concern, they need to either repair, replace or refund for the purchase if defective (officially you need to have a report to prove if inherent or not, but if you speak nicely to JL I doubt they will push for this - if your store won't help you, try another, you have nothing to lose as you already know its not on the JL system.)

I agree that the issue is for JL to sort, but the highlighted phrase is key - as the item is more than six months old, it is for the customer to prove the fault is inherent.

visidigi

indeed, but I suspect, from JL handling of issues previously they *may* overlook this need - given they have already had it confirmed by Panasonic that its defective theres a good chance of getting away with this usual need.