Is John Lewis going down the tubes?

dunroving

Just a post to describe my recent experience with John Lewis, in case it helps anyone working with John Lewis for a return.

Details: Garmin GPS watch purchased from John Lewis 29 months ago, in pristine condition until the watch face detached completely from the body. I've still got Garmin products that are over 10 years old that are in perfect condition, so this was unexpected. I don't even get the flipping thing wet, even though it's supposed to be waterproof.

Contacted JL Tech support via email with original order number, and they said I should return it to the shop so it can be inspected.

Spent a whole morning - caught the train into town, talked to Tech support in store. He said as it was out of warranty, he couldn't do anything. Notably, I made it clear that I didn't want a like for like exchange, or a full refund, just some action that recognised an expensive piece of kit like this should last more than two years. He kept using the expression "inherently faulty" - he said the item wasn't "inherently faulty" as it had lasted for 2 years. Blah, blah.

I called JL Tech Support when I got home. The assistant I spoke to didn't even understand that under the CR Act I was the consumer and JL was the trader! Kept insisting JL was the consumer. I spoke to a supervisor who said that if I could get a report saying the failure was not due to misuse, JL would make a contribution towards a replacement, but wouldn't give even a ballpark figure of how much.

I sent it to Garmin via tracked delivery, and they emailed to say the screen had lifted due to "a device fault and not due to misuse by yourself"

Called JL again and was told that if I forwarded this from Garmin, they would give a partial refund under the CR Act, in the region of £130, which I was fine with. Was told that within 48hrs I would be contacted by JL to explain the procedures I'd need to go through in order to receive the partial refund.

This afternoon, I received a call from a JL rep who launched into how I had no rights under the CR Act because the item was out of warranty, and that Garmin would have to replace the item. He said I had been given incorrect information by the person yesterday, and that Garmin had "made a mistake", which they would be contacting me about. He took on an argumentative tone from the outset. He asked me, "Is this the second problem you've had with the watch?" (No). Therefore, he said, the item wasn't "inherently faulty" (there's that expression again). I asked what the definition of "inherently faulty" was under the CR Act. He said a fault that is evident on the day the item was purchased. I suggested one would have to be out of one's mind to purchase an item that, on the day of purchase, was clearly faulty.

I eventually asked to speak to a supervisor to make a formal complaint (about him). Turns out the supervisor said, sure, I was due a £116 partial refund. What the heck was this other guy going on about?

I swear JL must be pulling random teenagers off the street and putting them to work in Customer service positions. I have absolutely no idea why this eejit took it upon himself to call me and launch into almost a tirade about how I had no claim under the CR Act (his words).

Does anyone have any insight into this whole "inherently faulty" terminology, and how it relates to the CR Act? I've run a search through the CR Act pdf and the term isn't in there. Clearly, JL must be training its employees to use this term in order to refuse action under the CR Act.

JJ_Egan

inherently faulty
Is a fault found at a later date that was probably thir upon purchase or a manufacturing defect that took some time to show .

dunroving

JJ_Egan wrote: »

inherently faulty
Is a fault found at a later date that was probably thir upon purchase or a manufacturing defect that took some time to show .

Thank you; that was my understanding, not necessarily from the CR Act, but from teaching English for several years! Both the in-store tech person and the eejit on the phone today insisted that an inherent fault was one that is immediately evident.

Interestingly, although the CR Act doesn't use the term, it is expleined on a number of law firm Web sites, e.g.:

"If the fault arises within six months of the purchase, and it’s not because of fair wear and tear, accidental damage or misuse, then the retailer must repair or replace the faulty goods. If the retailer objects, he must prove that the item wasn’t faulty to begin with or that it wasn't expected to last very long.

If six months have passed and something goes wrong, you might still get a repair or replacement but you will have to prove that the goods were inherently faulty, i.e. show that there is no other cause, such as accidental damage, for the fault.

To help you prove this, you may wish to obtain an independent expert’s report to back up your claim, although these can be expensive."

- this is what I tried in vain to explain to the JL reps, but I honestly think it was above their pay grade. The two supervisors I spoke to, on the other hand, completely "got it".

Wanderingpomm

I’m not sure that after more than 2 years JL does need to refund you. I think it’s garmins responsibility

LilElvis

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

I’m not sure that after more than 2 years JL does need to refund you. I think it’s garmins responsibility

Nope. The OP has a contract with the seller, not the manufacturer.

BoGoF

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

I’m not sure that after more than 2 years JL does need to refund you. I think it’s garmins responsibility

Clearly no knowledge of how the CRA works?

neilmcl

The problem is that JL no longer handle customer services in house any more, they haven't done so for a number of years now. Having said that is sounds like you have had a result.

dunroving

Wanderingpomm wrote: »

I’m not sure that after more than 2 years JL does need to refund you. I think it’s garmins responsibility

After 2 years, they may not necessarily be legally required to give a full refund, but I made it clear I wasn't expecting that. The contract is between the consumer (me) and the trader (JL), so whatever needs to be done under the CR Act, JL are responsible, not Garmin.

dunroving

neilmcl wrote: »

The problem is that JL no longer handle customer services in house any more, they haven't done so for a number of years now. Having said that is sounds like you have had a result.

Yes, and on the basis that I did speak with *some* reasonable people, I purchased the replacement from JL. I plan to write a letter explaining all the points at which they dropped the ball, not because I want additional compensation, but because I think they need to hear it.

A supervisor called me yesterday to say they listened to the phone call and that (a) yes, the JL employee was incorrect and unclear, and (b) the JL employee was argumentative from the outset.

Wanderingpomm

BoGoF wrote: »

Clearly no knowledge of how the CRA works?

The CRA says a product should be of satisfactory quality. How long is a smart watch supposed to last?

I imagine that model is no longer sold, product lines will have moved on, and JL would be within their rights to repair it rather than refund

Mr_Singleton

What was the Garmin item?..... I've only seen John Lewis selling the el cheapo basic consumer stuff. Are you saying you bought a Garmin Titanium Marq or the such like?

29 months? Why not just say about 2 years like everyone else? It is also 'pristine' hmmmmmm