John lewis washing machine broke & they are refusing to repair or replace

mohawk

I bought a John Lewis washing machine five years ago. I noticed that it spent an exceptionally long time 'balancing' the load prior to spinning & sometimes it refused to proceed to spin at all.

This commonly happened with a small load but less so with a full load, although even with a full load it took an excruciating amount of time to 'balance’ prior to spinning.

Now the drum bearings are suddenly shot to bits, the drum roars like a jet engine and will soon stop working completely as the bearings continue to break up & the whole machine will break up as it leaps around the kitchen damaging things until it finally stops, hopefully without causing a fire !

I now realise this failure of the drum was caused by the fact the drum had always been out of proper balance which is why it took so long before it decided to spin, or would even fail to spin at all sometimes and this goes right back to the day the machine was delivered new.

I originally spoke to the John Lewis 'technical help' department within the guarantee period to report this fault but they at first said that I should 'expect' this to happen with small loads - particularly a heavy one like one towel as it 'would be impossible to balance' such an item prior to spinning & the fact the machine rarely failed to spin when it had a full load meant 'it was working properly’ & it was to be expected a heavy single item would not balance or spin.

Having being fobbed off in this manner I became increasingly exasperated and again rang some time later to demand a repair under the guarantee of three years. It was now about to expire, & I was worried about this fault and was determined to demand a properly functioning machine before the guarantee expired.

John Lewis now accepted this and gave me a telephone number & a reference number & told me to phone the repair people at the phone number & give them the reference to arrange a repair under guarantee.

I was unable to do this as my personal life was turned upside down when I was unexpectedly & forcibly evicted from my home at only 24 hours notice by a fraudulent sub-prime mortgage cowboy lender and my inability to afford legal representation in court, allowing them to utterly abuse the due process of law - hence the sudden unexpectedness etc.

I was consequently now completely homeless as a single parent & my local council refused to re-house me, also turning out to be fraudulent & corrupt by falsely claiming it was my fault I was homeless, simply because I had got a mortgage eight years previously. Councils do this to thousands of people, I subsequently discovered.

Being homeless & without any of your possessions for a year and more makes life a nightmare of non-functionality.

Eventually I was able to get back to John lewis four and three quarter years after buying this faulty machine. They immediately said they would replace the machine or I could buy any other machine and they would credit the full amount of my original purchase price to that new machine & I would pay any difference.

BUT, when I contacted John Lewis a few weeks later to complete this process they at first completely fobbed me off at first denying any employee had promised to replace the faulty machine.

They later agreed they had said they would replace the machine but said that employee did not have the authority to do this and John Lewis just said that as the machine was now out of guarantee, they would do nothing about this at all. John Lewis did say they a complete record of all these previous conversations & agreed all of them had taken place.

When I argued the John Lewis person I was speaking to said they sympathised with me, but their senior manager had instructed them to tell me nothing would be done. When I continued arguing they said they would ‘escalate’ the issue to a more senior manager.

This more senior manager then phoned me to tell me John Lewis did accept liability within the six year period mentioned in the Sale of goods Act 1979, but that as the washing machine was expected to last an ‘average’ of only six years & I had now had it for nearly five years, he could only credit me for one sixth of the value of the machine which would be £68 only. He then upped that by £32 to a total of £100 ‘as a gesture of goodwill’.

I then pointed out that I had recorded the conversation when the John Lewis employee had originally promised to replace the machine & sent him an MP3 computer file of that recording where the John Lewis employee gives her name and clearly states the machine will be replaced.

I was still fobbed off with that £100.

What are my legal rights ? I think John Lewis have mis-behaved & are talking rubbish. The machine was always faulty and that fault has caused complete failure now & therefore the machine was never ‘fit for purpose’ & I am entitled to a repair or replacement according to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Also the life of a washing machine of this type is definitely to be expected to be well over six years - more like ten.

ThumbRemote

Had they never made the initial offer to replace, they'd be acting completely within their rights to give a proportional refund.

In your case it's complicated somewhat by the offer to replace, which was made then withdrawn. I'm not sure how binding that offer is - has an agreement been made or contract been formed when you both agreed to this over the phone? I'd be tempted to think it has and they need to stick by that offer.

However, have you accepted the £100? If so it sounds like you've accepted their alternative offer.

neilmcl

mohawk wrote: »

I think John Lewis have mis-behaved & are talking rubbish. The machine was always faulty and that fault has caused complete failure now & therefore the machine was never ‘fit for purpose’ & I am entitled to a repair or replacement according to the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

So what expert evidence do you have for this?

mohawk

Thanks for the reply, thumb, I haven't accepted the £100 offer. And my limited knowledge of law tells me that a verbal agreement is binding i.e it is a 'contract', equally valid to a written contract.

The only problem with verbal contracts is the unlikely-hood of being able to prove their existence. In this case I did have proof as it was recorded, as were all other conversations where they acknowledge I had been told it would be replaced.

The sale of goods act says you are entitled to either a repair or replacement (the logic being to put you back into the position you would have been if the machine had not been faulty).

This is what they said they would do and then it was withdrawn (unlawfully, I think).

Forwandert

mohawk wrote: »

Now the drum bearings are suddenly shot to bits, the drum roars like a jet engine and will soon stop working completely as the bearings continue to break up & the whole machine will break up as it leaps around the kitchen damaging things until it finally stops, hopefully without causing a fire !

Stop using it, You appear to know its not safe to use and mention you're a single parent so why would you be risking using it?

maninthestreet

Sounds like the OP has been hung out to dry by John Lewis....

bris

mohawk wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, thumb, I haven't accepted the £100 offer.

Then no contract exists, offer and acceptance hasn't taken place. The acceptance on you part creates the contract, without it there is nothing you can do if they change their mind.

unholyangel

I think everyones getting distracted.

There is already a contract in place - the contract of sale...JL are potentially in breach of this contract IF the goods are inherently faulty. Their offer of a replacement wouldnt constitute a legally binding contract as there is no consideration.

martinthebandit

Am I reading the OP right, it's a five year old washing machine that needs new bearings?

Its a simple enough job to do for a reasonably competent diy er or pay someone to do it.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP interrupts to wash things up.

OP, a washer woman type, purchased a washing machine from a leading not under sold retailer five years past. It worked, apparently badly since day one, though it is only now it is shot, the drum gone and bearings in pieces, has it come to our attention. OP has been offered £100 as good will, but, as is normal in these situations has jumped on their high clothes horse.

BoP now gives his advice. If said washing apparatus was bought for £600, then the offer of £100 is reasonable for five years use. If OP paid less than £600, it is a blindingly good offer.

It is unknown if children's pink fluffy bunnies have been destroyed using the washing apparatus.

shaun_from_Africa

unholyangel wrote: »

JL are potentially in breach of this contract IF the goods are inherently faulty. Their offer of a replacement wouldnt constitute a legally binding contract as there is no consideration.

As you rightly say, "IF", but that is a very big "if" and at this stage, proving an inherent fault would be nigh on impossible.
If an investigation and report had been carried out 2-3 years ago it might well have stated an inherent fault but as the washing machine has been used (and continues to be used) despite being faulty, who know what extra damage has been done.

Washing machines not spinning because of out of balance loads is very common (I have a Bosch appliance that does this all of the time).
http://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/washing-machine-not-spinning/

Not spinning because it senses an out of balance load isn't a fault and the bearings suddenly going may not be anything whatsoever to do with this and may simply be due to the age of the appliance.

Depending on the price of bearings, getting them supplied and replaced for £100 may well be possible.
This is just one I found (may not cover your area but it's just a guide)
http://www.awmronline.com/

Current charges other than for promotional offers: £15 call out and £20 labour = £35.00 plus parts. Drum bearing and drum problems in general are charged FROM £45.00 plus parts.