John Lewis TV Guarantee woes

SJP737

I bought a Samsung 40” LCD from John Lewis in the summer of 2012, covered by their 5-year guarantee. Great, or so I thought!

The Samsung table top stand supplied with it has now started to sag due to splits in the plastic stand which have developed in that time through normal use. The stand is now significantly weakened as a result, is near to collapse and leaves TV leaning forward awkwardly.

So I raised this with John Lewis and provided photographs.

Whilst their guarantee policy does not explicitly exclude TV stands, John Lewis insist that a TV stand (packaged and boxed with a TV) is deemed a ‘cosmetic’ item and is therefore excluded by their policy clause “Cosmetic items such as cabinet trim, scratches, dents, corrosion or colour where the function of the product is unaffected”

However I argue that this is NOT cosmetic at all. The Collins dictionary quotes the meaning as; “Cosmetic: having no other function than to beautify”.
The stand is not cosmetic as it does perform the necessary function of supporting the TV in position for normal operation, and is clearly a functional part, without which I would not be able to watch the TV as it would be horizontal on the floor!

Surely it is reasonable to expect that a simple supporting stand with no moving parts would be fit for purpose and made to a standard whereby it would last at least as long as the TV it is designed to support. Less than 2 years into a 5-year John Lewis guarantee and John Lewis decline responsibility through the vague and woolly wording of their guarantee. If they mean to specifically exclude items then they should explicitly state this, but they do not.

As it has been more than 6 months the SOGA seemingly has less to offer my case as the onus is on the consumer to prove the fault/defect was present at the point of sale, but perhaps EU Directive 1999/44/EC might help as that calls for a minimum 2 year guarantee?

Any advice of using this EU Directive in claims or other experiences of John Lewis side-stepping claims made under their guarantee?

Thanks

SJP737

neilmcl

Forget the EU directive, the SOGA is what you should be looking at, besides both will require to prove that the TV and stand are inherently faulty.

I tend to agree with you regarding functionality as you would expect the stand to last the lifetime of the TV it's designed to support although you would need to prove that the cracks are not due to misuse or accidental damage etc.

bris

The EU directive has not been implemented in the UK we still have SOGA.

What caused the splits, it's unlikely going to be because of normal use, splits are a sign of pressure being put on the TV through moving it here and there.

You could wall mount it and get rid of the stand.

Fosterdog

You can buy the stands and it's a five minute job with usually about 4 screws to swap it.

My brother knocked his TV over which snapped the base (TV itself thankfully not damaged) it was around £15 for a replacement and now the TV is completely stable again.

unholyangel

The EU directive you refer to does not mean a warranty in the way we have come to use the word. It refers only to the period in which you can take action against a seller for breach of contract. It does not mean all goods should last that long or that if an item fails within that time, you're entitled to a repair/replacement/refund.

In the UK, the Limitations Act gives 6 years - far far far better than the 2 years given by the EU directive.

Implementing that part of the directive would have left us in a worse off position than we are now.

gik

unholyangel wrote: »

The EU directive you refer to does not mean a warranty in the way we have come to use the word. It refers only to the period in which you can take action against a seller for breach of contract. It does not mean all goods should last that long or that if an item fails within that time, you're entitled to a repair/replacement/refund.

In England and Wales, the Limitation Act gives up to 6 years - far far far better than the 2 years given by the EU directive.

Implementing that part of the directive would have left us in a worse off position than we are now.

Fixed for you. Given your 'location' shame on you!

gik

I'd guess an Englishperson living in Scotland BTW?

unholyangel

gik wrote: »

Fixed for you. Given your 'location' shame on you!

Given my location I also know that 90% of the contracts I do business with are governed by english law, not scots law.

Given my time on the forum I also know that the majority of posters here tend to be from south of the border - although not surprising since we (scots) make up less than 10% of the UK's population.

But I appreciate the sentiment. Just on that 10% chance, its 6 years from purchase in england and wales (and N. Ireland as well I believe), 5 years from discovery (of the problem) in scotland.

I may be biased but personally I prefer Scots law - especially the controversial "not proven". It has a certain usefulness.

unholyangel

gik wrote: »

I'd guess an Englishperson living in Scotland BTW?

Born and raised in Scotland I'm afraid.

gik

unholyangel wrote: »

Given my location I also know that 90% of the contracts I do business with are governed by english law, not scots law. Doesn't make a lot of sense but if I deal with Russia 95% of the time I can quote Russian law?

Given my time on the forum I also know that the majority of posters here tend to be from south of the border - although not surprising since we (scots) make up less than 10% of the UK's population. You claimed it was UK legislation...it's not and you were wrong to do so.

But I appreciate the sentiment. Just on that 10% chance, its 6 years from purchase in england and wales (and N. Ireland as well I believe), 5 years from discovery (of the problem) in scotland. There you go you can get it right!

I may be biased but personally I prefer Scots law - especially the controversial "not proven". It has a certain usefulness.

Are you really in the legal profession?

gik

unholyangel wrote: »

Born and raised in Scotland I'm afraid.

Yet you claim E&W legislation as UK...when you clearly know it's not. Any chance you will let us know who you work for so I can avoid?