Can I insist on a refund?

neilmcl

Zandoni wrote: »

Why do you all keep on about SOGA and the 6 Month stuff, you just confuse the OP's. They will not need to worry about it at all when goods are bought from companies like John Lewis.

The one year guarantee that's offered will be all they need to know.

A one year guarantee, doesn't mean the OP's going to automatically get a refund does it, far from it. The warranty will be with the manufacturer and they likely want it back for repair. The OP themself mentioned SOGA - "I only start to get irritated when the member of staff I'm dealing with patently hasn't got a clue about the SOGA and I end up teaching them about it myself!" so to say where all out to confuse the OPs is a little bit much, don't you think.

The OP asked for advice and to what his rights are and the members here are merely trying to help wth the correct advice.

Zandoni

neilmcl wrote: »

A one year guarantee, doesn't mean the OP's going to automatically get a refund does it, far from it. The warranty will be with the manufacturer and they likely want it back for repair. The OP themself mentioned SOGA - "I only start to get irritated when the member of staff I'm dealing with patently hasn't got a clue about the SOGA and I end up teaching them about it myself!" so to say where all out to confuse the OPs is a little bit much, don't you think.

The OP asked for advice and to what his rights are and the members here are merely trying to help wth the correct advice.

I'm not suggesting that the guarantee offered will get the OP a refund, but it will certainly give them some sort of remedy.

But I do think talk of SOGA is confusing and not necessary with companies like JL

neilmcl

Zandoni wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the guarantee offered will get the OP a refund, but it will certainly give them some sort of remedy.

Well you clearly said that the guarantee is all the OP needs to know, when he's specifically asking about a refund. Who's being confused, you or the OP I wonder.

Zandoni

neilmcl wrote: »

Well you clearly said that the guarantee is all the OP needs to know, when he's specifically asking about a refund. Who's being confused, you or the OP I wonder.

Well I'm not confused so it must be you

mattyprice4004

They're allowed to repair, replace or refund at their option.

ilovegreyhounds

Right, got a follow up to the above. Apologies it's taken me yonks to get around to posting it.

Took the camera back to JL and spoke to an assistant. He said they would send it away for repair and that it 'should be back with 28 days'. I said I wasn't happy with that as I didn't think that was reasonable and I wasn't fussed with the camera in the first place.He said 28 days was within the acceptable limits of the law (or something like that) and I said I disagreed as it was massively inconvenient for me since I used the camera virtually every day.

He took me over to the service department and spoke to the manager there. I explained that I wasn't impressed with the camera in the first place and felt 28 days was too long for a repair. She said if I'd advised them I didn't rate the camera within 28 days they could have exchanged or refunded but since it was past the 28 days they wouldn't. However, she said if you have the box and all the bits I will give you a refund or replacement on this occasion. She wrote her name on my receipt and said to ask for her on my return.

Came home and searched for the box and it's contents. Found contents no problem but box was no more. New puppy several weeks before = puppy chewed box we think! RAng JL and spoke to stand in manager of camera dept who said I could still return the camera but I would be charged a 10% handling fee for not having the box.

I spoke to a friend about this who just happens to lecture on consumer rights and the SOGA is her speciality (hadn't realised!) and she said they had no right to deduct 10% as it wasn't part of the contract. It wasn't mentioend on the receipt or in their terms anywhere that the box had to be retained so they couldn't include it as a term now.

So, I took the contents, receipt and camera back to JL and saw the original person - the manager of the repair centre. I explained about naughty puppy and box and she said what would I like, a replacement or a refund. I opted for a replacement as I like JL. I was going to push my luck and explain that I thought I was going to have challenge this 10% deduction statement but I thought, no, let sleeping dogs lie, don't look a gift horse i the mouth and other such idioms!! I am more coward than crusader I reckon!

Really hope this tale helps someone else though and thanks again for helping me out everyone. Much appreciated.

CoolHotCold

Well your friend is either wrong, or you didn't tell them the whole truth.

The fact they were exchanging it or refunding is above the SoGA and is good customer service, the 10% deduction can be applied as they are not following the SoGA AND they could even offer a partial refund based on the time you've had the system.

Unless you use it for business (in which case consumer laws don't really apply and you should have backup ones) a camera is a luxury item and to be without it for a maximum of 28 days is not Significant inconvenience, and JL would be well within their rights to repair the item.


I may come across a little harsh, but your seem to be almost gloating over John Lewis when they've done nothing wrong and given by all standards excellent customer service.

mattyprice4004

Your friend is either oblivious to SOGA or one of those idiots who thinks they know it all when in fact they know very little - I used to love a customer in Currys trying to educate me on SOGA and then me having to tell them no, they're wrong.

You had no right to a refund - inconvenience is a wheelchair user being without their chair, not you being unable to take pictures.

You're lucky the manager was reasonable and could bend the rules. If I had a customer argue about inconvenience for something like a camera or television id explain they're not essential to every day life, and would stick to policy 100%. If a customer was genuinely nice about it, I'd be inclined to do more.

terra_ferma

ilovegreyhounds wrote: »

Right, got a follow up to the above. Apologies it's taken me yonks to get around to posting it.

Took the camera back to JL and spoke to an assistant. He said they would send it away for repair and that it 'should be back with 28 days'. I said I wasn't happy with that as I didn't think that was reasonable and I wasn't fussed with the camera in the first place.He said 28 days was within the acceptable limits of the law (or something like that) and I said I disagreed as it was massively inconvenient for me since I used the camera virtually every day.

He took me over to the service department and spoke to the manager there. I explained that I wasn't impressed with the camera in the first place and felt 28 days was too long for a repair. She said if I'd advised them I didn't rate the camera within 28 days they could have exchanged or refunded but since it was past the 28 days they wouldn't. However, she said if you have the box and all the bits I will give you a refund or replacement on this occasion. She wrote her name on my receipt and said to ask for her on my return.

Came home and searched for the box and it's contents. Found contents no problem but box was no more. New puppy several weeks before = puppy chewed box we think! RAng JL and spoke to stand in manager of camera dept who said I could still return the camera but I would be charged a 10% handling fee for not having the box.

I spoke to a friend about this who just happens to lecture on consumer rights and the SOGA is her speciality (hadn't realised!) and she said they had no right to deduct 10% as it wasn't part of the contract. It wasn't mentioend on the receipt or in their terms anywhere that the box had to be retained so they couldn't include it as a term now.

So, I took the contents, receipt and camera back to JL and saw the original person - the manager of the repair centre. I explained about naughty puppy and box and she said what would I like, a replacement or a refund. I opted for a replacement as I like JL. I was going to push my luck and explain that I thought I was going to have challenge this 10% deduction statement but I thought, no, let sleeping dogs lie, don't look a gift horse i the mouth and other such idioms!! I am more coward than crusader I reckon!

Really hope this tale helps someone else though and thanks again for helping me out everyone. Much appreciated.

It's really nice when someone bothers to come back and tell us how it went
I agree with you (regardless of your legal rights etc), that sometimes it's not worth fighting, particularly when the retailer was really quite gracious about it.
Great to hear this thread had a happy ending :T

ilovegreyhounds

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Well your friend is either wrong, or you didn't tell them the whole truth.

The fact they were exchanging it or refunding is above the SoGA and is good customer service, the 10% deduction can be applied as they are not following the SoGA AND they could even offer a partial refund based on the time you've had the system.

Unless you use it for business (in which case consumer laws don't really apply and you should have backup ones) a camera is a luxury item and to be without it for a maximum of 28 days is not Significant inconvenience, and JL would be well within their rights to repair the item.


I may come across a little harsh, but your seem to be almost gloating over John Lewis when they've done nothing wrong and given by all standards excellent customer service.

Yes, you are being harsh and unnecessarily so. I am massively grateful to JL for being so good about it which is why I spend thousands with them every year. Why on earth would I gloat and what on earth gave you that impression? It is arguable as to whether they were following the SOGA. But that is an argument I haven't the time or the inclination to get into with you.

The whole point of these boards is to get opinions. The SOGA is one of those grey laws that is interpreted differently by virtually everyone who looks at it from laymen to lawyers to judges. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. That is why it is getting replaced next year so that it will be easier to use, understand and apply. Supposedly. If it was as black and white as you seem to think, there would be no needs for boards such as this.

However, thank you for your opinion.