john lewis, lg tv and consumer rights act

Aylesbury_Duck

kevineaton77 wrote: »

Also...LG may be unwilling to get involved now seeing as jl have further em!!!!!!ed the tv

They've what?!

kevineaton77

Morning! Emb-u-g-ge-red

neilmcl

kevineaton77 wrote: »

Well...I'm not sure I can tell them "this is the last repair" because they believe that they can continue making visits until it is repaired. And until it is repaired, all visits are under the banner of "the first repair". Which sounds bonkers to me. Is it just me???

Of course you can tell them. You need to assert yourself and insist they act within your statutory rights.

kevineaton77

I'm pretty good at demanding things. They flat out said that this was still an ongoing repair and wouldn't budge. Spoke to manger..same stance. They aren't part of an ombudsman scheme. I bought it on credit card and could get them involved.

neilmcl

TBH, you're probably worrying about nothing, I doubt this is going to turn into a saga. They'll either fix it on the next visit or they don't. If not then you start to ramp up things such as getting your CC co. involved and sending out an LBA.

unholyangel

Looks like JL are relying on this part of CRA:

(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.

(7)For the purposes of subsection (6) goods that the trader arranges to repair at the consumer’s premises are made available when the trader indicates that the repairs are finished.

The explanatory notes provide:

137.For the purposes of determining when one repair has been carried out, subsection (7) provides that, where the repair is carried out on the consumer’s premises, the repair is not complete until the trader indicates to the consumer that the repairs are finished. This means that a single repair may be carried out over more than one visit, without triggering the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject until the trader notifies the consumer that it is complete.

So, the question is.....did they notify you the repair was complete?

If not, then you would need to argue unreasonable time/significant inconvenience. Although 28 days for a tv repair imo is not unreasonable and unless there are some special circumstances.....its unlikely to be a significant inconvenience. Its inconvenient yes, but not significantly so.

Fosterdog

I can kind of see JLs side on this, what you had was a faulty TV with no actual proof of what the fault is just some random people online discussing it. As it is over six months since purchase JL could have insisted on you getting an independent report before even offering a repair but instead they took your word for it and sent somebody out to diagnose the fault and if possible repair it. They hadn't seen the TV until that point so the only parts they brought were based on your diagnosis of the fault and not that of a trained engineer, that trained engineer has now found either that the fault was not what you said it was or that there is an additional fault that also needs fixing.

If they had collected it instead of coming to your home they may well have swapped out several parts during the diagnosis process over several days until they could find and fix the problem but it would still only be counted as one repair not several. Just because they get one repair attempt doesn't mean that they are not allowed to diagnose a fault first and nowhere does it say that the repair has to be completed in a single day.

If you had a boiler fault and called out a plumber, most people expect them to arrive one day and fix on the spot if it's a simple problem or to order parts and return if the faultis more complex or needs non standard parts to repair it.

Same if you had a car and took it to the place you bought it for a clutch problem, they might fix the clutch easily enough because you had pre warned them of the issue, but if they also find a problem with the exhaust that needs them to order in the parts they are within their rights to do so without you counting it as a second repair, even if they allow you to take the car away and bring it back for the second part of the repair.

DoaM

unholyangel wrote: »

its unlikely to be a significant inconvenience. Its inconvenient yes, but not significantly so.

OP might argue that taking time off work to be at home for this extended (single) repair attempt IS a significant inconvenience. If the JL repair agent had taken the TV away for the repair then there would be no such issue - they didn't, so there is.

neilmcl

DoaM wrote: »

OP might argue that taking time off work to be at home for this extended (single) repair attempt IS a significant inconvenience. If the JL repair agent had taken the TV away for the repair then there would be no such issue - they didn't, so there is.

My thought exactly, which is why the OP should be getting back to JL and leading with this.

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

OP might argue that taking time off work to be at home for this extended (single) repair attempt IS a significant inconvenience. If the JL repair agent had taken the TV away for the repair then there would be no such issue - they didn't, so there is.

But has OP tried to mitigate their loss? OP says they run their own business (loss of revenue rather than loss of wages), so would be within their control when they work/schedule appointments for. There would also be the possible option of having someone else wait in.