I thought John Lewis was a responsible company!

Equaliser123

Hintza wrote: »

This whole thread is unbelievable, I had a look and it was all a very straightforward, clear and simple process. JL has obviously as TH suggests gone the extra mile.

Can someone summarise? Can't be bothered reading the whole 3 pages.

ValHaller

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Can someone summarise? Can't be bothered reading the whole 3 pages.

• OP caught out by poor presentation of an offer for 20% off on trade in of old vacuum cleaner for new.
• Expected physical voucher.
• Information presented on a clickable link gave a voucher code.
• Not clear to OP (or me) that the offer required clicking on the link
• nor indeed clear that it was certainly a link, because the presentation was governed by website CSS and not browser default
• OP took stick for not clicking through from substantial number of posters
• John Lewis refused recompense
• OP tried again
• John Lewis accepted that the presentation was not clear and reimbursed OP
• Some posters denying that John Lewis accepted that presentation was not clear

visidigi

There's a much shorter version of events...

ValHaller wrote: »

• OP caught out by [STRIKE]poor presentation[/STRIKE] not reading the details of an offer for 20% off on trade in of old vacuum cleaner for new.
  [STRIKE]
• Expected physical voucher.
• Information presented on a clickable link gave a voucher code.
• Not clear to OP (or me) that the offer required clicking on the link
• nor indeed clear that it was certainly a link, because the presentation was governed by website CSS and not browser default
• OP took stick for not clicking through from substantial number of posters[/STRIKE]
• OP complained to JL
• John Lewis refused recompense
• OP tried again
• John Lewis [STRIKE]accepted[/STRIKE] employee said in his opinion that the presentation was not clear and reimbursed OP on this occasion
• Some posters [STRIKE]denying[/STRIKE] saying that unless the webpage is changed then [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] John Lewis as a business have not accepted [STRIKE]that presentation was not clear[/STRIKE] that the webpage was wrong.

ValHaller

visidigi wrote: »

There's a much shorter version of events...

It is only shorter for glossing over the points of controversy which is what Equaliser was really interested in, I think. (" Can't be bothered reading the whole 3 pages.")

My account at least represents the fact that there was controversy here.

Leo2020

And the thread goes on...

mattyprice4004

nandrews wrote: »

neilmcl,
Excuse me? Am I not allowed here to thank those people who replied and offered advice? Now that I have achieved a result of which I am satisfied, I wanted to sign out of this thread politely and gracefully.
Nigel

You are allowed, however you need to learn to take criticism without throwing your toys out of the pram... like you did in your first few replies.

You can't just expect everyone to be on your side when the offer was quite obvious, we're not here to side with you and tell you what you'd like to hear.

If you wanted to be polite, you'd thank all of those who replied, including those with an opinion differing from your own.

ValHaller

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

You are allowed, however you need to learn to take criticism without throwing your toys out of the pram... like you did in your first few replies.

There was no tantrum. I have just checked his replies."throwing ... toys out of the pram" just does not match how OP replied. He was disagreeing about as strongly as I am disagreeing with you now. If you are going to call that 'throwing toys out of the pram' you are completely devaluing the expression.

bod1467

nandrews wrote: »

Thanks for all your 'advice', tho' I more appreciated those who showed at least some sympathy.
Nigel

neilmcl wrote: »

This is a consumer rights forum, if you want sympathy try the samaritans.

nandrews wrote: »

neilmcl,
Excuse me? Am I not allowed here to thank those people who replied and offered advice? Now that I have achieved a result of which I am satisfied, I wanted to sign out of this thread politely and gracefully.
Nigel

Is that why you put the word advice as 'advice'? (Quoting the word infers sarcasm, which hardly fits with the words I have bolded from your last post).

lil.smartie

I was taught to read the fine print, if online these are often a link...

Kate

unholyangel

lil.smartie wrote: »

I was taught to read the fine print, if online these are often a link...

Kate

I was taught offers are like tampons....there are always strings attached!