John Lewis TV guarantee

neverthesamedaytwice

JJ_Egan said:

Specifications , do you mean the sound bar ??

Sorry, I'm not totally following your question.

I think the soundbar would be considered part of the specification?

JJ_Egan

( I simply expect a Panasonic matching the specification of the TV I purchased.)

OK what specifications do not match .

neverthesamedaytwice

JJ_Egan said:

( I simply expect a Panasonic matching the specification of the TV I purchased.)

OK what specifications do not match .

The key differentiator here is the word 'panasonic'.

neverthesamedaytwice

If the wording of the 5 year warranty had clearly stated that the brand purchased might not be the brand of the replacement model, I would have likely shopped elsewhere and purchased a warranty separately.

If JL are unable to offer me an equivalent TV made by the original manufacturer, I'd like them to update the text on their warranty page to clearly state this.

I'd imagine they wouldn't be keen to do this, as it's likely to have at least some negative affect on their bottom line.

binao

A new aspect on Panasonic to LG.

 My friend had a Panasonic. We popped into JL for coffee/cake. Came out with a LG OLED TV. 

Bad decision. The screen may be great, the customer / user / viewer interface is awful,

JL CS has been contracted out in the past.

JL Was so good, now???

neverthesamedaytwice

binao said:

A new aspect on Panasonic to LG.

 My friend had a Panasonic. We popped into JL for coffee/cake. Came out with a LG OLED TV. 

Bad decision. The screen may be great, the customer interface is awful,

JL CS has been contracted out in the past.

JL Was so good, now???

I've read the same in reviews. Thanks for the confirmation.

It's all quite depressing.

Gavin83

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neilmcl said:

The sound of the LG CX range is reportedly quite good, not sure how it compares with the separate speaker arrangement of the Panasonic but I agree, if it is a separate soundbar then you should at least push for something similar from JL.

I take it it's the sound system described in the following: https://www.whathifi.com/panasonic/tx-55fz952b/review

Yes, that's correct! It's that sound system .. it was billed as quite a large part of the specification, as the review confirms.

I contacted Panasonic and asked them what the equivalent TVs in their range would be today. The rep has provided a list, all of which are currently in stock at John Lewis, so I'll mention that in my email.

Thinking about all this, it definitely feels like John Lewis should give more clarity about what the warranty includes. From speaking to the repair company it sounds like a TVs today are very likely to need replacing in most cases, with parts becoming obsolete in the matter of a couple of years.

One question that comes to mind, is whether the guarantee is for return of the amount I paid (less depreciation)—which feels very much like a rental agreement; or whether the guarantee provides a like-for-like replacement.

If I think about this tangentially; If someone bought a Volvo and the warranty replacement was a VW, I can't see this being acceptable regardless of the quality of the replacement brand. Should this matter be any different?

Of course Panasonic would provide such a list. They'd hardly supply you with a list of other brands. As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected) it states it needs to be of an equivalent specification, not of the same brand. As I previously said if it went as far as court I'm almost certain they'd conclude that legally speaking the LG is a reasonable replacement. 

I have to ask (and be honest!) why are you so set on the Panasonic and dismissive of the LG? I'm fairly sure none of the current Panasonic OLEDs have a sound bar either so it can't be that.

In answer to your other question it sounds like they'll give you the equivalent model as a replacement or the cash value for that model towards something else. How much did you pay for the Panasonic originally, am I to assume it was £1200?

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neilmcl said:

All the current/latest Panasonic OLEDs are 2 or 3 generations of panel tech later than your old TV so are arguably not equivalent in specification, they are much better (as are those by LG, Sony etc). You're basically trying to argue that as you purchased the highest spec at the time (even though it was older spec even then) then you're entitled to the highest spec Panasonic of today. That's not how it works. The sound bar issue aside, JL are fulfilling the terms of their warranty by offering the LG CX which is of the same, if not higher spec of your much older Panasonic range.

I would argue that by the very nature of the fast moving TV industry—and the built in obsolescence associated with it—all TVs will have a better specification. It's also clear that due to this scenario, a replacement is a more usual resolution than repair.

The state of the industry is not my fault—and I don't feel my requirement to have a like for like replacement is made any less reasonable because of it.

You can argue the state of the industry if you wish but ultimately this is what the terms of the guarantee (and actually consumer rights laws) state. You are entitled to a TV of equal spec, nothing more, nothing less. TV tech does move quickly and therefore effectively any 55" OLED would be suitable. However the rules aren't different for industries which update quickly.

It's probably easier to compare it to another industry which moves quickly, computing. If you were to have bought a top of the range Sony PC with a quad core processor and a TB of memory, if it then went wrong you'd be entitled to the same spec. You wouldn't be entitled to the new model with 8 cores and 4TB of memory just because that's the "equivalent" model Sony now do, you'd get the Acer with a quad core and TB of memory.

neverthesamedaytwice said:

neilmcl said:

All the current/latest Panasonic OLEDs are 2 or 3 generations of panel tech later than your old TV so are arguably not equivalent in specification, they are much better (as are those by LG, Sony etc). You're basically trying to argue that as you purchased the highest spec at the time (even though it was older spec even then) then you're entitled to the highest spec Panasonic of today. That's not how it works. The sound bar issue aside, JL are fulfilling the terms of their warranty by offering the LG CX which is of the same, if not higher spec of your much older Panasonic range.

If JL had to clearly state that the warranty replacement may be a completely different brand, and might not reflect the specifics features the item purchased conforms to, would they gain as much custom from this warranty offer?

I would strongly suspect that they wouldn't

The guarantee is still considerably better than you'd get at most retailers and (I believe) still free. If you decided not to shop there I'm not really sure where else you'd go for a better offer. I also suspect most people wouldn't care and would happily take the LG.

Out of interest which model(s) did Panasonic suggest you ask for as a replacement and which are you asking for? 

Gavin83

binao said:

A new aspect on Panasonic to LG.

 My friend had a Panasonic. We popped into JL for coffee/cake. Came out with a LG OLED TV. 

Bad decision. The screen may be great, the customer interface is awful,

JL CS has been contracted out in the past.

JL Was so good, now???

Your post is quite confusing as I'm not sure if you're saying the customer service at JL is awful or the OS for the TV is awful. However webOS (which runs on LG) is often considered one of, if not the best TV OS on the market. However I do appreciate this is quite subjective.

Take the What HiFi review for example that explicitly mentions the OS as a plus point:

https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/lg-oled65cx

neverthesamedaytwice

Thanks for such a thorough response!

Gavin83 said:

Of course Panasonic would provide such a list. They'd hardly supply you with a list of other brands. As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected) it states it needs to be of an equivalent specification, not of the same brand. As I previously said if it went as far as court I'm almost certain they'd conclude that legally speaking the LG is a reasonable replacement. 

I have to ask (and be honest!) why are you so set on the Panasonic and dismissive of the LG? I'm fairly sure none of the current Panasonic OLEDs have a sound bar either so it can't be that.

Bineo gives a good reason in the above comment regarding the software and user interface; but more fundamentally, this replacement seemed to completely disregard the process of choosing a brand and choosing a product. It takes away all agency I originally had in choosing a product.

Are all TV manufacturers the same? Are all TVs effectively the same?

I don't think they are.

You can argue the state of the industry if you wish but ultimately this is what the terms of the guarantee (and actually consumer rights laws) state. You are entitled to a TV of equal spec, nothing more, nothing less. TV tech does move quickly and therefore effectively any 55" OLED would be suitable. However the rules aren't different for industries which update quickly.

I very much appreciate that I am subject to the terms set out in the warranty by JL.

As I mentioned in a previous comment, I do not feel that the wording on the warranty page provided by JL goes far enough to suggest a replacement is likely, and that a different manufacturer and specification are also likely in the event of a malfunction.

It's probably easier to compare it to another industry which moves quickly, computing. If you were to have bought a top of the range Sony PC with a quad core processor and a TB of memory, if it then went wrong you'd be entitled to the same spec. You wouldn't be entitled to the new model with 8 cores and 4TB of memory just because that's the "equivalent" model Sony now do, you'd get the Acer with a quad core and TB of memory.

The point for me is that Panasonic do actually offer an equivalent specification.

The fact it may be more expensive than the LG model offered isn't relevant if we consider the offer of equivalent specification. If hairs need splitting, the Panasonic range has HDR10+ and the LG does not.

The guarantee is still considerably better than you'd get at most retailers and (I believe) still free. If you decided not to shop there I'm not really sure where else you'd go for a better offer. I also suspect most people wouldn't care and would happily take the LG.

I would have purchased a separate guarantee if I'd known I wouldn't be getting a like-for-like replacement.

I think JL were fully expecting me to take LG, especially when they threw out the TV I own without asking me for any confirmation.

Out of interest which model(s) did Panasonic suggest you ask for as a replacement and which are you asking for?

I haven't suggested any model, I've just forwarded a copy of the transcript of the conversation with Panasonic.

Gavin83

neverthesamedaytwice said:

Thanks for such a thorough response!

Gavin83 said:

Of course Panasonic would provide such a list. They'd hardly supply you with a list of other brands. As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected) it states it needs to be of an equivalent specification, not of the same brand. As I previously said if it went as far as court I'm almost certain they'd conclude that legally speaking the LG is a reasonable replacement. 

I have to ask (and be honest!) why are you so set on the Panasonic and dismissive of the LG? I'm fairly sure none of the current Panasonic OLEDs have a sound bar either so it can't be that.

Bineo gives a good reason in the above comment regarding the software and user interface; but more fundamentally, this replacement seemed to completely disregard the process of choosing a brand and choosing a product. It takes away all agency I originally had in choosing a product.

I've already responded to Bineos post (which I still claim as confusing) but I've posted a review which states how good the OS is.

neverthesamedaytwice said:

Thanks for such a thorough response!

Gavin83 said:

Of course Panasonic would provide such a list. They'd hardly supply you with a list of other brands. As far as I'm aware (happy to be corrected) it states it needs to be of an equivalent specification, not of the same brand. As I previously said if it went as far as court I'm almost certain they'd conclude that legally speaking the LG is a reasonable replacement. 

I have to ask (and be honest!) why are you so set on the Panasonic and dismissive of the LG? I'm fairly sure none of the current Panasonic OLEDs have a sound bar either so it can't be that.

Are all TV manufacturers the same? Are all TVs effectively the same?

I don't think they are.

Are all TV manufacturers the same? No and I'm not sure anyone could argue otherwise. If they were offering you a Logik or something similar I'd be upset. However LG and Panasonic are very much on the same level quality wise and are certainly equivalent brands.

Even then if they offered you the Logik I'm not sure legally you'd have a case if the spec was the same, although your argument would be a lot more solid.

neverthesamedaytwice said:

I would have purchased a separate guarantee if I'd known I wouldn't be getting a like-for-like replacement.

I think even in the case of a paid for extended warranty from most retailers it would allow a change of manufacturer.

Anyway you didn't answer my other questions:

1) Why are you so set on the Panasonic over the LG?
2) Did you pay £1200 for the Panasonic originally? Not being nosey, I'm just trying to work out JL's justification in their offer.
3) Which model(s) did Panasonic suggest when you spoke to them?