Faulty tv from John Lewis

unholyangel

Drew1961 said:

The main fault with tv is the screen basically when switched on looks like white cracked lines all over it the aerial connector is another fault but the tv can’t be repaired. Also I am acting as the lay representative my daughter is too nervous about speaking up in court . 

She'll never get less nervous about it, if you do it for her.

What expenses did the solicitor say your daughter would be liable for? If they've implied there would be liability for costs that there is no legal basis for then report the solicitor. 

Also since you mention sheriff I presume you're in Scotland. There's some big differences between Scots law and English. 

user1977

unholyangel said:

Drew1961 said:

The main fault with tv is the screen basically when switched on looks like white cracked lines all over it the aerial connector is another fault but the tv can’t be repaired. Also I am acting as the lay representative my daughter is too nervous about speaking up in court . 

There's some big differences between Scots law and English. 

No huge ones in consumer rights though, any relevant differences are going to be in things like court procedure.

theonlywayisup

Drew1961 said:

The entire issue was reported as impact damage. But apart from the Arial connector being bent there were no external signs of impact damage. We were going to get an independent engineer to look at it but JL said there was no point as theirs had already examined it. 

Well, other than being tardy you could still get the report.  What you need it to show is that the fault was inherent (and not impact damage). 

unholyangel

user1977 said:

unholyangel said:

Drew1961 said:

The main fault with tv is the screen basically when switched on looks like white cracked lines all over it the aerial connector is another fault but the tv can’t be repaired. Also I am acting as the lay representative my daughter is too nervous about speaking up in court . 

There's some big differences between Scots law and English. 

No huge ones in consumer rights though, any relevant differences are going to be in things like court procedure.

Maybe not consumer rights exactly but contract law (which is just as relevant) there are. Statute of limitations, unilateral contracts etc. 

Drew1961

Yes I’m in Glasgow spoke to trading standards. They say it’s a lot of hassle and money for JL to take it to court and pay for a lawyer for the day. It’s already coat me £130 to take it to simple procedure process and that’s another reason I rejected their £250 offer. Lawyer is. Now saying they will increase to £300 . 

Drew1961

I think the expenses are max £150 for this level of claim 

neilmcl

Drew1961 said:

Yes I’m in Glasgow spoke to trading standards. They say it’s a lot of hassle and money for JL to take it to court and pay for a lawyer for the day. It’s already coat me £130 to take it to simple procedure process and that’s another reason I rejected their £250 offer. Lawyer is. Now saying they will increase to £300 . 

I think you should accept their offer.

sheramber

If the  connector is bent indicating impact damage the tv could have been damaged at the same time
Was the TV in the flat while the building  work was going on?

Manxman_in_exile

Drew1961 said:

... Also I am acting as the lay representative my daughter is too nervous about speaking up in court . 

Will the OP be allowed to represent his daughter in court as opposed to being a McKenzie friend?  If it gets to court won't the daughter have to speak for herself - or get a lawyer to do it?

Al_Ross

JJ_Egan said:

Problem is a damaged connector  found six month later .

No Op said " JL delivered to her top floor flat in dec. 2019 "

That would make it at least 15 months ago. Is the Op saying the tv remained un-boxed during this period stored at the flat or elsewhere perhaps?