John Lewis not complying?

neilmcl

tsukiduki wrote: »

Apologies, Pink Shoes but I have not used should’ve or would’ve have I? 🤔🙂

That's part of his signature, not his reply to you.

neilmcl

NotRichAtAll wrote: »

when you are sitting watching the tv are you close enough to caress it? i fail to see how the trim can show signs of wear when the tv is just sat in a corner or plonked on a stand or hung on a wall

Possibly because it was damaged by the service engineer when it was removed to fix the button.

tacpot12

A court will expect you both to act reasonably. JL appear to be doing so here, so I would send it back for JL to repair, or repair it myself with a suitable paint and pocket the goodwill payment.

Gavin83

tsukiduki wrote: »

Hi
I purchased a tv from John Lewis in February 2018. The on/off button malfunctioned and so it was taken away for repair. It was returned this week and the trim is now wearing damage. Have contacted JL and all they are prepared to do is take it away again, strip it down and replace the trim or give me a goodwill payment to accept the damage. Having spoken to the consumer advice helpline they have told me that JL have had their one chance to fix the tv and now I’m entitled since I don’t want it repaired again, a replacement, a reduction in price and accept the damage or reject the tv. I’ve told JL I would like under the consumer rights act 2015 a replacement but they won’t budge. I’ve now formally written to them using recorded delivery but was wondering if anyone had any further advice please?

Ignoring the debate about whether they're entitled to repair it again or not you can't demand a replacement. They've offered you a partial refund to except the damage. If you refuse this and the repair you're entitled to a replacement or a partial refund taking into account the use of the TV, which admittedly won't be much with less than a years use. However JL can choose.

Zandoni

This is John Lewis we are talking about here, I'm sure they'll give you a refund without any deductions. Hopefully your letter will get you a more reasonable reply.

shaun_from_Africa

tacpot12 wrote: »

A court will expect you both to act reasonably. JL appear to be doing so here,

How is not abiding by their statutory obligations acting reasonably?

tsukiduki

Thank you for all of your input. I’m just going to wait until I hear what they have to say in response to my letter. I honestly don’t think I should have to have a damaged tv which I didn’t damage or have my tv stripped down to be fixed - which is going to take at the very least 2 weeks as they have to get the parts from the United States - because of damage that they caused (let’s be honest, things that have been taken apart are never the same again - the very reason why I’m in the situation that I am in). What will be will be, I just have to follow the process now 😊

bris

The way I see it it's not faulty just that JL damaged it, it would then be reasonable for JL to fix their mistake.


It's also not clear (that I can find) that a different fault can't also be repaired. The info I can find is that if the same fault happens then it can be rejected for a refund but it doesn't seem right that if a different fault develops a few months latter it can still be rejected.


So can any one clear that up?

shaun_from_Africa

I don't know if the rejection always applies if it's a different fault that appears but in this instance I would say that it definitely does.

My reasoning is that the explanatory notes for the CRA state the following:

136.
The section provides that, if repair or replacement was impossible or if the consumer’s goods continue to be substandard after the consumer has either:
•already undergone one repair or replacement of the goods by the trader; or
•sought a repair or replacement but this was not carried out within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenient to the consumer,
the consumer may either:
•keep the goods and insist on a reduction in the price; or
•reject the goods and obtain a refund which may, in some circumstances, be subject to a deduction to take account of any use the consumer has had of the goods.

so even though the initial problem has been repaired, when the TV was received back by the OP it was still substandard due to the new damage.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/notes

unholyangel

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—
(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

<snip>

(6)There has been a repair or replacement for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) if—
(a)the consumer has requested or agreed to repair or replacement of the goods (whether in relation to one fault or more than one), and
(b)the trader has delivered goods to the consumer, or made goods available to the consumer, in response to the request or agreement.

Theres nothing ambiguous in that imo. Its also the advice given to businesses by BiS. From this guidance:

FAQ 18
A consumer claims several faults with the goods at the same time. They say
that they want to reject the goods as they only have to accept a repair for one
of the faults and the other faults would remain so they can use the final right to
reject. Is this correct?
No, if the faults are presented at the same time, you have the opportunity to fix them
all as a single repair.
If the repair attempt fails to fix all of the faults, or if it is successful but a further fault
appears, the consumer could then use the final right to reject.

Consumer only needs to accept one repair/replacement
The consumer only has to accept one repair or replacement of the goods before s/he has
a right to some money back. If you give a repair or replacement but the goods still do not
meet the consumer’s rights – either because the original issue continues, or a new issue
appears – the consumer has the right to reject the goods for a refund or get some money
back (see “7. The Final Right to Reject or Reduction in Price (2nd tier remedies)” for
further detail on these remedies).Although the consumer only has to accept one repair or
replacement, there is nothing to stop you offering further repairs or replacements as an
alternative to the 2nd tier remedies, provided you do not deny the consumer their right to
money back – in some cases the consumer will be content to accept that approach.
Equally, if the consumer does not wish to move to a second tier remedy, they are entitled
to further repairs/replacements if the goods continue not to conform to the contract.