John Lewis TV guarantee

screech_78

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:

Legally, you’re entitled to a replacement or a refund (minus usage). The TV’s you seem to be arguing over don’t come with a sound bar either yet you seem to keep fixating on this. 

All of these discussions have been very useful thanks

In an ideal world I'd still have the TV I bought. As tragic as it sounds, I spent months deliberating over this purchase.

The TV developed a fault on Christmas eve, which has been unfortunate. As @neilmcl states, the TV I bought was an outgoing model; this was possible because I bought it in June during the range switch over. Perhaps if the TV had decided to malfunction in June, I'd be able to get the outgoing model as a replacement too .. unfortunately I haven't had control over this.

As a consumer, I'm annoyed that a product costing me over £1200 hasn't even lasted two years. I'm also annoyed that John Lewis hasn't met the high standards many people associate with them.

I honestly don't want a 'better TV'. I just want choice over the TV I have in my living room. I originally chose a Panasonic TV, and I'd like the replacement to be a Panasonic too.

There's been a high degree of inconvenience with this whole process; phone calls, waiting in for repair appointments, emails .. and of course, no TV. To think that I'll also need to shell out even more money to get back to the place I was in (Panasonic TV in my living room) .. makes me feel even more annoyed.

I honestly do understand this. Nobody wants their TV to fail and I really do sympathise. 

The problem is that they can’t give you your Panasonic back - you can argue that it shouldn’t be disposed of, however you would be left with a broken TV and the cost of having it fixed yourself (warranty for the remainder of the 5 years would almost certainly also be void). In the absence of a repair, JL can replace and I suppose all you can do is try and argue for a different TV however the specs look to match - they don’t have one with a sound bar to give and I honestly don’t believe this would meet the threshold for equivalent spec. If you choose not to go with this, they can refund and even going down the consumer rights route, they can refund for usage. And £200 for 2 years is pretty good going.

I’ll be surprised if JL back down but I do wish you luck. Remain polite and calm, and you never know. 

screech_78

With regards to the high level of service of JL, I also believe they’re one of the best out there. If you’d went anywhere else (perhaps with the exception of Richer Sounds) you’d be out of warranty and fighting for even a basic resolution. Their guarantee is pretty decent by normal standards. Problem is, they won’t just throw money at customers as they used to - it’s tough times for businesses now and people always confuse this with poor service. 

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:so

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:

Gavin83 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

All good points, thanks, I'll see what JL says.

I'm a bit concerned that JL has gone and disposed of the TV without informing me.

Do I not technically still own the TV?

Probably and they shouldn’t have disposed of it. However you need to ask yourself what the resolution would be. It would be to supply you with a similar spec replacement so you’re just going round in circles. If you pushed this and they refunded you I expect it would fall outside of their guarantee and they’d be able to reduce the refund for usage. Why would you have wanted a broken TV back anyway?

I’m wondering this too. My view is that OP didn’t want a broken TV back but they’re trying to use JL disposing of it as leverage to get what they want. The result would be the same, replacement or refund in the absence of repair so I don’t really see the issue. 

When faced with an offer I'm unhappy with, I'm pretty sure I need the option of being able to say no.

If I did say no, I would assume I'd get the TV back. Otherwise I'm left with nothing.

Without this option, I'm effectively being held over a barrel.

But what would you do with it? Repairing it at an independent would cost you money. You would be in an even worse position than you are now so I just don’t get the argument. 

Look at it from another point of view.

If I decide I'm not happy with the offer, what should happen next from a legal standpoint?

Nothing.

Your consumer rights wouldn't entitle you to a better TV and JL's offer of a refund minus £200 would certainly be seen as fair as far as your consumer rights go.

The brand does not form part of the specification.  JL are completely in the right.

So I am not entitled to receive the TV back?

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

neverthesamedaytwice

screech_78 said:

With regards to the high level of service of JL, I also believe they’re one of the best out there. If you’d went anywhere else (perhaps with the exception of Richer Sounds) you’d be out of warranty and fighting for even a basic resolution. Their guarantee is pretty decent by normal standards. Problem is, they won’t just throw money at customers as they used to - it’s tough times for businesses now and people always confuse this with poor service. 

I'd honestly like to agree with you here, but there are ways and means. Maybe the department I was talking to has been subcontracted out, but the responses and interaction was pretty much "computer says no". I was quite shocked.

Definitely read good things about Richer Sounds while researching around this issue though!

neverthesamedaytwice

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:so

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:

Gavin83 said:

neverthesamedaytwice said:

All good points, thanks, I'll see what JL says.

I'm a bit concerned that JL has gone and disposed of the TV without informing me.

Do I not technically still own the TV?

Probably and they shouldn’t have disposed of it. However you need to ask yourself what the resolution would be. It would be to supply you with a similar spec replacement so you’re just going round in circles. If you pushed this and they refunded you I expect it would fall outside of their guarantee and they’d be able to reduce the refund for usage. Why would you have wanted a broken TV back anyway?

I’m wondering this too. My view is that OP didn’t want a broken TV back but they’re trying to use JL disposing of it as leverage to get what they want. The result would be the same, replacement or refund in the absence of repair so I don’t really see the issue. 

When faced with an offer I'm unhappy with, I'm pretty sure I need the option of being able to say no.

If I did say no, I would assume I'd get the TV back. Otherwise I'm left with nothing.

Without this option, I'm effectively being held over a barrel.

But what would you do with it? Repairing it at an independent would cost you money. You would be in an even worse position than you are now so I just don’t get the argument. 

Look at it from another point of view.

If I decide I'm not happy with the offer, what should happen next from a legal standpoint?

Nothing.

Your consumer rights wouldn't entitle you to a better TV and JL's offer of a refund minus £200 would certainly be seen as fair as far as your consumer rights go.

The brand does not form part of the specification.  JL are completely in the right.

So I am not entitled to receive the TV back?

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

When did I stop owning the TV?

Will the warranty be subject to a specific set of terms, and if so where can these be found? (Asking as it sounds like you're privy to them ..)

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

screech_78 said:

Legally, you’re entitled to a replacement or a refund (minus usage). The TV’s you seem to be arguing over don’t come with a sound bar either yet you seem to keep fixating on this. 

All of these discussions have been very useful thanks

In an ideal world I'd still have the TV I bought. As tragic as it sounds, I spent months deliberating over this purchase.

The TV developed a fault on Christmas eve, which has been unfortunate. As @neilmcl states, the TV I bought was an outgoing model; this was possible because I bought it in June during the range switch over. Perhaps if the TV had decided to malfunction in June, I'd be able to get the outgoing model as a replacement too .. unfortunately I haven't had control over this.

As a consumer, I'm annoyed that a product costing me over £1200 hasn't even lasted two years. I'm also annoyed that John Lewis hasn't met the high standards many people associate with them.

I honestly don't want a 'better TV'. I just want choice over the TV I have in my living room. I originally chose a Panasonic TV, and I'd like the replacement to be a Panasonic too.

There's been a high degree of inconvenience with this whole process; phone calls, waiting in for repair appointments, emails .. and of course, no TV. To think that I'll also need to shell out even more money to get back to the place I was in (Panasonic TV in my living room) .. makes me feel even more annoyed.

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

neverthesamedaytwice

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

neverthesamedaytwice

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

No, you're not.

You've exercised your contractual rights under their warranty, which do not include you getting the TV back, and neither do your consumer rights.

When did I stop owning the TV?

Will the warranty be subject to a specific set of terms, and if so where can these be found? (Asking as it sounds like you're privy to them ..)

I'd be very interested to learn how this works legally.

y3sitsm3

neverthesamedaytwice said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TV's break.  They'll have a Mean Time Between Failure but that is an average, not a minimum.

You've had 2 years of usage of said TV at a cost of £200, so roughly £2 a week.  Hardly unreasonable is it?

Yes, I do consider it unreasonable, because I didn't intend to rent a TV by the week.

I expected the TV to last at least five years, hopefully more.

Take the refund and put some more towards the TV you really want.  And then shell out a packet on a 5 year warranty that gives you an equivalent model replacement from the latest models for the same brand (good luck with that.)

If the JL site had been more clear about the terms of the warranty (e.g. "We will provide you with a TV equivalent to the money you spent, minus £100 depreciation per year owned. There is no guarantee you will receive a TV from the same manufacturer.") I would not have shopped at JL.

It's very clear actually.

If we can't repair your TV, we'll replace it with a TV of equivalent specification. If no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value, and we'll always do our best to make sure you're satisfied with the outcome.

They're offering you the cash price of the nearest equivalent spec TV.

They're not offering a depreciation of £100 per year as a rule, but that the nearest equivalent TV is now £200 less than what you paid for yours after 2 years.

If you expected it to last 5 years then their £200 less than price paid offer is better than you could have expected.

neverthesamedaytwice

They're offering you the cash price of the nearest equivalent spec TV.

This has been the main debatable point throughout the whole thread.