Repair Centre claiming warranty void

theonlywayisup

You need to go back to JL and let them know as they engaged the courier then the damage (in transit or after) is down to them and the courier.  As far as you are concerned you did as instructed and sent an intact item back.

Apologies if I missed it, but how much was the TV and how did you pay?

Saint67

The TV was £200 and I paid by credit card as I do with all online purchases. I would lose £100 which to some may not seem much. For me, It's as much based on principle as I don't accept the responsibility for the damage and I also think I should have been advised immediately upon receipt rather than 3 weeks later.

bris

George_Michael said:

Saint67 said:

2) The repair centre claims it was damaged when they received it. Even though I heard no update for over three weeks. I initially received 3 emails. First stating receipt of item, second assigning to engineer followed by a third stating item was being put on diagnostics.

It truly is my word against theirs.

I find it had to believe that any reputable business would take delivery of an item such as a TV and then go though a 3 week process of assigning the repair to an engineer and and arranging for diagnostics to be carried out without first inspecting that TV to check its physical condition and that the details are all correct.
In fact, I would have thought that the first thing they would do when they received it would be to carry out a condition check.

If it did come down to legal action, a judge would base their ruling on the balance or probabilities and I would hope that a sensible judge would think it likely that the damage occurred after the repairers took possession of the set.

Do you think they sit waiting for boxes to come in and inspect them right away? Of course not the TV would have been put in the back of the queue waiting for it's turn to be fixed. It could easily take 3 weeks to be seen as these repair canters get hundreds of items every day.

unholyangel

bris said:

George_Michael said:

Saint67 said:

2) The repair centre claims it was damaged when they received it. Even though I heard no update for over three weeks. I initially received 3 emails. First stating receipt of item, second assigning to engineer followed by a third stating item was being put on diagnostics.

It truly is my word against theirs.

I find it had to believe that any reputable business would take delivery of an item such as a TV and then go though a 3 week process of assigning the repair to an engineer and and arranging for diagnostics to be carried out without first inspecting that TV to check its physical condition and that the details are all correct.
In fact, I would have thought that the first thing they would do when they received it would be to carry out a condition check.

If it did come down to legal action, a judge would base their ruling on the balance or probabilities and I would hope that a sensible judge would think it likely that the damage occurred after the repairers took possession of the set.

Do you think they sit waiting for boxes to come in and inspect them right away? Of course not the TV would have been put in the back of the queue waiting for it's turn to be fixed. It could easily take 3 weeks to be seen as these repair canters get hundreds of items every day.

The OP said they received 3 separate emails. One confirming receipt, one saying assigned to engineer and one saying it was being diagnosed? 

GM is just saying surely the latest point the damage should have been spotted (given op says completely shattered) is after being assigned an engineer but before being sent for diagnostics. 

But in any event, from the OPs perspective it doesn't matter if it was the repair centre or the courier, as both are agents of JL and JL retain liability since you can only ever assign the benefit of a contract, not the obligation.

Spank

Just because it's been assigned to somebody doesn't necessarily mean that they have looked at it, it might still be in a queue.

George_Michael

bris said:

George_Michael said:

Saint67 said:

2) The repair centre claims it was damaged when they received it. Even though I heard no update for over three weeks. I initially received 3 emails. First stating receipt of item, second assigning to engineer followed by a third stating item was being put on diagnostics.

It truly is my word against theirs.

I find it had to believe that any reputable business would take delivery of an item such as a TV and then go though a 3 week process of assigning the repair to an engineer and and arranging for diagnostics to be carried out without first inspecting that TV to check its physical condition and that the details are all correct.
In fact, I would have thought that the first thing they would do when they received it would be to carry out a condition check.

If it did come down to legal action, a judge would base their ruling on the balance or probabilities and I would hope that a sensible judge would think it likely that the damage occurred after the repairers took possession of the set.

Do you think they sit waiting for boxes to come in and inspect them right away? Of course not the TV would have been put in the back of the queue waiting for it's turn to be fixed. It could easily take 3 weeks to be seen as these repair canters get hundreds of items every day.

Seeing as most, if not all delivery companies require that damaged goods get reported within a fairly short timeframe following delivery, I would have thought that once delivered, a basic inspection of the item would have been carried out.
If the TV was "put in the back of the queue" and not even looked at, why would the OP have received the 3 e-mails that they mention?
They received one e-mail stating that the set had been received which is fair enough but I still don't find it plausible that they would get 2 further e-mails stating that set was assigned to an engineer and yet another about it being put on diagnostics without even a cursory look having been made to the contents of the box.