Advice on Jessops poor customer service

dodger99

I bought a camera from Jessops 3 months ago, it developed a problem in the first month but because it only happened once did not take it back, big mistake, this week went on our yearly Christmas trip and the camera let me take 4 pics before the problem started again. Took the camera back to the store today (it is less than 3 months old), and oh dear even though the camera is obviously faulty and they saw the fault we have to go through 'we have to send it back for repair', then 'it will take 3 weeks', no actually it won't, I have been informed more likely 6 weeks, this is not the kind of company I thought I was dealing with, I only went to Jessops because I understood them to be a caring company, customer care, non existant, even the staff were embarrassed but its 'company policy...' Spoke to the manager, no he was not allowed to make a decision, he called head office, again procedures mean the camera has to sent for repair, so I have to be without for the next 6 weeks, no christmas piccies this year then, thanks Jessops, your all heart.
Do I have to accept this poor service? Surely as a consumer I have a right to a replacement, not sure I want a 3 month old repaired camera. Also was informed this was part of terms and conditions which were printed on the till receipt but as you do not get this until you have paid, surely this is a con.
Anyone able to help, also any similar experiences so I can judge if my camera will be back in time for my summer hols..

arcon5

no you don't have any rights to a replacement. You have rights to a replacement, repair or refund and it's effectively their choice. They said it will take upto 3 weeks? seems standard & acceptable to me, the fact it's going to clash with Christmas is unfortunate but by no means their fault.

How on earth could this ever be classed a "a con"?

I think your well & truly overreacting and your expectations are flawed.

FOXGLOVE_2

I'm in the same boat with a faulty tv bought 6 weeks ago from Argos.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3629731

Also given conflicting information about timescales. I assume you had a 30 day money back guarantee, after that you'll find some companies can't be bothered providing customer service and are only repairing it cos they have to.

dodger99

Sorry to hear that Foxglove, as you say once an item is paid for customer service is out the door. Given Arcon5's reply you can see why they continue to get away with it as whilst ever there are people who accept it they will continue to do it. Hope you get your TV back soon.

texranger

dodger99 wrote: »

Given Arcon5's reply you can see why they continue to get away with it as whilst ever there are people who accept it they will continue to do it.

Arcon is quoting SoGA you are entitled to a repair, replacement or refund and this is up to the retailer to which one they provide

arcon5

dodger99 wrote: »

Sorry to hear that Foxglove, as you say once an item is paid for customer service is out the door. Given Arcon5's reply you can see why they continue to get away with it as whilst ever there are people who accept it they will continue to do it. Hope you get your TV back soon.

I'm betting more people than not see nothing wrong with a company repairing a faulty item after quarter of a year!!

What exactly are they getting away with? Seems to me they are honouring your statutory rights!

Seems you live in your own bubble, so doesn't mattter what anybody says anyway.

arcon5

texranger wrote: »

Arcon is quoting SoGA you are entitled to a repair, replacement or refund and this is up to the retailer to which one they provide

SOGA = Sales of Goods Act 1979

sorry, something tells me op won't know what soga stands for

texranger

arcon5 wrote: »

SOGA = Sales of Goods Act 1979

sorry, something tells me op won't know what soga stands for

true my mistake for not being clear

ThumbRemote

arcon5 wrote: »

Patronising rubbish

texranger wrote: »

I love you arcon5

dodger99, just ignore the drivel from this pair, arcon5 is well known for his "the customer is always wrong" attitude and texranger only posts to belittle others and raise their own poor self-esteem.

You are quite right to be annoyed. While Jessops may be sticking to the letter of the law, they are clearly doing the minimum possible which is poor customer service as you said.

Legally, the SoGA also states any repair must be "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer" and also says "Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to the nature of the goods, and the purpose for which the goods were acquired."

I would argue that the loss of a camera over Christmas does cause you significant inconvenience, the very nature of a camera is that you want it for events like this. However - if Jessops refuse to honour this then your only recourse is to the courts, which will take you beyond Christmas anyway.

I'd suggest two options:

1) Ask if Jessops will provide a loan camera for the period you are without. If they refuse, tell other potential customers in the store about their customer service levels.

2) Buy a replacement camera yourself to cover Christmas and then use the small claims court to obtain the cost back from Jessops. There is no guarantee you will win, but in a case like this I'd be very surprised if you didn't.

arcon5

ThumbRemote wrote: »

dodger99, just ignore the drivel from this pair, arcon5 is well known for his "the customer is always wrong" attitude and texranger only posts to belittle others and raise their own poor self-esteem.

it's more like level headed, down to earth, realistic advice. I'm all pro-consumer, but there has to be a balance of fairness between retailer and consumer when things go wrong -- if many of the newbies posting around these boards got their own way then not many businesses would be around (or prices would be significantly higher to account for these significant costs).

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Legally, the SoGA also states any repair must be "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer" and also says "Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to the nature of the goods, and the purpose for which the goods were acquired."

I would argue that the loss of a camera over Christmas does cause you significant inconvenience, the very nature of a camera is that you want it for events like this. However - if Jessops refuse to honour this then your only recourse is to the courts, which will take you beyond Christmas anyway.

As usual your advise could be costly and have adverse affects on the op.

op would be laughed out of court. Jessops are acting within the law.

Not having a camera causing significant inconvenience? Get real. Significant inconvenience would be not having a wheel chair for two months or a broken boiler for a month! It's inconvenient at best, but reasonable to allow 21 days for a repair!!

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I'd suggest two options:

1) Ask if Jessops will provide a loan camera for the period you are without. If they refuse, tell other potential customers in the store about their customer service levels.

What will op say
'my camera has developed a fault and Jessops are repairing it at no cost to me within 21 days. what horrible people'

This may work if they refused to assist op or was trying to fob op off or something, but in this case will just look like an idiot! Infact if anything it's good publicity 'I need a camera mate, where shall I go?' 'I know just the place, Jessops down the road.. I see they offer good after-sale service when things go wrong with little hassle'

ThumbRemote wrote: »

2) Buy a replacement camera yourself to cover Christmas and then use the small claims court to obtain the cost back from Jessops. There is no guarantee you will win, but in a case like this I'd be very surprised if you didn't.

:rotfl:

It just gets better!

So op now benefits from having two working camera as sues the retailer for the cost of the second one. And you think a court would accept this?

vyle

Oh god, if being without a camera over christmas is a significant inconvenience then I must be like one of those super rich people bathing in champagne, because I have four cameras (five if you count my phone) and I didn't take any photos last christmas.