FYI/Result - John Lewis smartphone purchase, phone stops working 3x, refund refused, Money Claim won

mattyprice4004

If JL said the OP has to go to Samsung for repair, that counts as one repair attempt by them as they're telling the consumer they need to use Samsung. If they merely mentioned off-handedly that Samsung may be quicker I wouldn't say that counts, as JL would still have been willing to repair. 
A good result for the OP, but more than likely a case of 'paying off' than a clear-cut win. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Gavin83 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Gavin83 said:

You had no right to a refund. 

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

(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;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

What point are you making?

goalieral said:

Samsung ended up repairing it because John Lewis's tech help can take up to 30 days - and they encourage contacting Samsung for the repair. 

Either JL are saying they aren't able to resolve within a reasonable time or are instructing the consumer to use their associate for the repair.


I fully agree that JL paid to avoid the time and expense of defending rather than any merits of the claim but in an instance where the consumer has approached the retailer and been "persuaded" to go to the manufacturer I think you'd have fair argument to show on the balance of probability the manufacturer was acting on the retailer's behalf. 


This is particularly true of certain national retailers who automatically divert the consumer to the manufacturer clearly showing there is an agreement between the retailer and the manufacturer to resolve consumer issues. 


You directly stated the OP had no right to a refund but the point is debatable. 

macman

Pedant's corner: you didn't win via MoneyClaim: you settled out of court after filing, but before the hearing.
You might well not have won in court, since you didn't have any report to prove a pre-existing fault. But the cost to JL to contest a small claims action, where they cannot claim the costs back from the claimant if they win, simply make defending such a claim uneconomic, since the legal costs would be at least a couple of grand to them, possibly more. This way, they've paid out maybe £500 only?
Did you send an LBA before filing your claim?
Did they actually say in writing that CRA 2015 did not apply to them? If so, that is extraordinary.

Gavin83

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Gavin83 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Gavin83 said:

You had no right to a refund. 

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

(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;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

What point are you making?

goalieral said:

Samsung ended up repairing it because John Lewis's tech help can take up to 30 days - and they encourage contacting Samsung for the repair. 

Either JL are saying they aren't able to resolve within a reasonable time or are instructing the consumer to use their associate for the repair.


I fully agree that JL paid to avoid the time and expense of defending rather than any merits of the claim but in an instance where the consumer has approached the retailer and been "persuaded" to go to the manufacturer I think you'd have fair argument to show on the balance of probability the manufacturer was acting on the retailer's behalf. 


This is particularly true of certain national retailers who automatically divert the consumer to the manufacturer clearly showing there is an agreement between the retailer and the manufacturer to resolve consumer issues. 


You directly stated the OP had no right to a refund but the point is debatable. 

Fair point. I agree with you (and others) that the OP isn't exactly clear. I suspect what happened (and the way I read it) is they contacted JL who said the repair could take up to 30 days and they then decided to try Samsung instead. The OP is very carefully worded and doesn't really state JL sent them to Samsung, but it doesn't really say otherwise either. It's all down to the detail really, of which we've got very little.

As pointed out it's a good result for the OP regardless. However we've have a number of topics recently on this forum where the posters claim they've upheld their consumer rights when in reality the retailer just can't be bothered to fight it. I think it's important to make the distinction.

macman said:

Did they actually say in writing that CRA 2015 did not apply to them? If so, that is extraordinary.

I doubt they actually directly said this, I suspect it's more the OP's interpretation. While JL doesn't have the customer service skills it once had I struggle to believe a company of their standing would make such a bold comment.

nototentsdirect

I had a similar issue with John lewis but a return item. Did the court thing and they paid up including costs. John Lewis customer service gone down hill. Will never buy anything from them againm

sheramber

There has been at  least one other post where JL were quoted a s saying the Consumer Rights Act  2015 doesn't apply to them.
 

goalieral

JL did not say in writing that the CRA didn't apply to them - they wouldn't put anything in writing other than stock links to their T&C's, despite my very pointed and detailed emails in response confirming what I'd been told on the phone and requesting them to confirm in writing. I did send a LBA. 

They most certainly did EXPLICITLY say on the phone that the CRA did not apply to them and I should take it to court - this was the 'head' to whom my case had been escalated.

Re offer to repair, on the first 2 occasions of breakdown/fault, I contacted JL who encouraged me to go the Samsung route. The third time, no offer to repair or refund - they essentially cut me off!! I didn't mention that the third time I actually spoke to a helpful JL CS rep who put me on a three-way with Samsung to get some sort of code (manifest number or something??) to get me a refund and then there was an awkward back-and-forth between them with Samsung saying 'we are not able to give you that'. Then the JL CS rep talked to management and he said he could no longer help me because my case had already been escalated. That's when I was told the above and basically kicked to the kerb (courts). 

The main purpose of my post was to let people know that they can and should take them to court to get their money back. I would love to actually pursue the case so JL's horrible practices can be shamed and stopped. I would have been happy to get a report demonstrating fault (or at least try), and/or show that they just weren't following the law and I have plenty of documented detail to pursue it. You can also request transcripts of calls with them which I did in the event I needed them for my case.