John Lewis denying my right to repair or replacement?

Okell

DullGreyGuy said:

Okell said:

I think that you [ie @StarlightStarbright455 - edited for clarity] are correct.

You are entitled - in the first instance - to request either a repair or a replacement.

JL must comply with your request except insofar as the remedy you ask for is "disproportionate" compared to the other one.  So if you ask for a repair, they could replace if repair was "disproporti.onate".  And vice versa.

After one failed attempt at repair or replacement you have a right to a refund - reduced to account for use if you bought over 6 months ago.

My understanding is that JL do not have an option of offering you a refund in the first instance if you want repair or replacemnt

I think you are incorrectly extrapolating that the fact the consumer does not have the right to demand a refund after the first failure to mean that the matter cannot be resolved by the retailer providing a refund (less use after the first 6 months other than for motor vehicles) if the other remedies are disproportionately expensive. 

After the first repair/replacement then the consumer also gets the right to demand a refund on a subsequent defect.

I'm not sure what you mean?

To me the intent of s23 is clear and it has nothing to do with any right the consumer has to a refund.  s23 only talks about repair or replace.

If the consumer is entitled to a repair and they want a repair, then the seller must repair unless (a) a repair is impossible or (b) a repair is disproportionate as compared to a replacement.  If either (a) or (b) the seller can replace rather than repair, but the law says nothing about the seller being entitled to refund against the consumers wishes - the seller must replace, unless replacement is also impossible.

Similarly, if the consumer is entitled to a replacement and they want a replacement, then the seller must replace unless (c) a replacement is impossible or (d) a replacement is disproportionate as compared to a repair.  If either (c) or (d) the seller can repair rather than replace, but the law says nothing about the seller being entitled to refund against the consumers wishes - the seller must repair, unless repair is also impossible.

Nowhere does it say anything about the seller being able to offer a refund if the seller considers both repair and replacement to be disproportionate compared to a partial refund.

Of course there is nothing preventing a seller from offering a refund to resolve the situation, but if the consumer doesn't want a refund the seller can't force it upon them against their will - unless both repair and replacement are impossible.  And in this case there seems to be evidence that a repair is possible - if very expensive.

It's not a question of fairness.

Of course, how the OP can persuade JL that they are wrong and he is correct is a different matter...

DullGreyGuy

AOkell said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Okell said:

I think that you [ie @StarlightStarbright455 - edited for clarity] are correct.

You are entitled - in the first instance - to request either a repair or a replacement.

JL must comply with your request except insofar as the remedy you ask for is "disproportionate" compared to the other one.  So if you ask for a repair, they could replace if repair was "disproporti.onate".  And vice versa.

After one failed attempt at repair or replacement you have a right to a refund - reduced to account for use if you bought over 6 months ago.

My understanding is that JL do not have an option of offering you a refund in the first instance if you want repair or replacemnt

I think you are incorrectly extrapolating that the fact the consumer does not have the right to demand a refund after the first failure to mean that the matter cannot be resolved by the retailer providing a refund (less use after the first 6 months other than for motor vehicles) if the other remedies are disproportionately expensive. 

After the first repair/replacement then the consumer also gets the right to demand a refund on a subsequent defect.

I'm not sure what you mean?

To me the intent of s23 is clear and it has nothing to do with any right the consumer has to a refund.  s23 only talks about repair or replace.

If the consumer is entitled to a repair and they want a repair, then the seller must repair unless (a) a repair is impossible or (b) a repair is disproportionate as compared to a replacement.  If either (a) or (b) the seller can replace rather than repair, but the law says nothing about the seller being entitled to refund against the consumers wishes - the seller must replace, unless replacement is also impossible.

Similarly, if the consumer is entitled to a replacement and they want a replacement, then the seller must replace unless (c) a replacement is impossible or (d) a replacement is disproportionate as compared to a repair.  If either (c) or (d) the seller can repair rather than replace, but the law says nothing about the seller being entitled to refund against the consumers wishes - the seller must repair, unless repair is also impossible.

Nowhere does it say anything about the seller being able to offer a refund if the seller considers both repair and replacement to be disproportionate compared to a partial refund.

Of course there is nothing preventing a seller from offering a refund to resolve the situation, but if the consumer doesn't want a refund the seller can't force it upon them against their will - unless both repair and replacement are impossible.  And in this case there seems to be evidence that a repair is possible - if very expensive.

It's not a question of fairness.

Of course, how the OP can persuade JL that they are wrong and he is correct is a different matter...

A replacement in this case isn't readily possible, its a discontinued item and the reference notes states a replacement must be like for like so if the original was new the replacement has to be new. 

The extreme scenario is always the much easier one to point out the flaw in arguments... lets say Apple had said they didn't have the parts anymore as its obsolete and so the only way to repair it would be to fabricate a bespoke item for it at the cost of £10,000. Do you honestly think the CRA is saying JL has to pay £10,000 for an item the customer only paid £240 for 4 years ago given the customer wants a repair and a replacement is impossible?

In reality Apple's report would just say it's not economical to repair and so they recommend the OP buy the newer model. "impossible" almost never exists, the reality is its uneconomical not impossible

The retailer has the option to refund if repair and replacing are disproportionately expensive or "impossible" (aka uneconomical)

born_again

StarlightStarbright455 said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, it’s fair as the cost of repairing is disproportionate on a four year old item.

And I can say with 99% certainty that they can’t replace your AirPods. The AirPods you have will be a different model which they will no longer stock. 

So a partial refund is fair. 

They do sell the same model online and in store (AirPods Pro) just the 2nd generation of this same model (which were developed to solve this manufacturing defect, ironically).  

Apple said to me that they would likely swap the defective AirPods for a new or reconditioned 2nd generation pair rather than repair if I’d bought directly with them.  I’d be absolutely fine with a reconditioned pair.  Not sure why JL have refused to deal with Apple on this issue and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone - I asked them to do this.  They are very firm that they get to choose the remedy which is a partial refund and nothing else, so we have reached a deadlock.  

Not sure whether or not to take to ADR or accept the £85…but it will cost me £100+ to buy a new pair which I really can’t afford at the moment.   Expensive lesson learned to avoid JL in the future for Apple/electrical products!  

So they do not sell the same gen 1 model, as it has been superseded. So can not supply a replacement.

It's like buying a Macbook pro 4 years ago & expecting them to replace it with a new model. As it's called the same, despite the spec's being totally different.🤷‍♀️

ArbitraryRandom

Okell said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Okell said:

I think that you [ie @StarlightStarbright455 - edited for clarity] are correct.

You are entitled - in the first instance - to request either a repair or a replacement.

JL must comply with your request except insofar as the remedy you ask for is "disproportionate" compared to the other one.  So if you ask for a repair, they could replace if repair was "disproporti.onate".  And vice versa.

After one failed attempt at repair or replacement you have a right to a refund - reduced to account for use if you bought over 6 months ago.

My understanding is that JL do not have an option of offering you a refund in the first instance if you want repair or replacemnt

I think you are incorrectly extrapolating that the fact the consumer does not have the right to demand a refund after the first failure to mean that the matter cannot be resolved by the retailer providing a refund (less use after the first 6 months other than for motor vehicles) if the other remedies are disproportionately expensive. 

After the first repair/replacement then the consumer also gets the right to demand a refund on a subsequent defect.

I'm not sure what you mean?

To me the intent of s23 is clear and it has nothing to do with any right the consumer has to a refund.  s23 only talks about repair or replace.

If the consumer is entitled to a repair and they want a repair, then the seller must repair unless (a) a repair is impossible or (b) a repair is disproportionate as compared to a replacement.  If either (a) or (b) the seller can replace rather than repair, but the law says nothing about the seller being entitled to refund against the consumers wishes - the seller must replace, unless replacement is also impossible.

And a replacement IS impossible if they don't stock the product the OP bought... which they don't. Which brings us to s24. 

Of course, how the OP can persuade JL that they are wrong and he is correct is a different matter...

The Op doesn't have to persuade JL of anything - if they are convinced of their argument then they can go to small claims for the cost of the repair (as the lowest cost option they consider their 'right'). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would suggest section 24 is relevant to interpretation: 



5b wouldn't be included if a trader couldn't exclude BOTH options under 23(3) (and it doesn't specify only 23(3)a).   

I would suggest repair is disproportionate and replacement is impossible (as the specific generation is no longer in production) 

Section 23, paragraph 3 also includes:

(a)is impossible, or

The guidance notes are lacking on (b)

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

which could suggest it should be read narrowly. 

Ultimately it's unlikely a court would award specific performance of repairing the goods, the consumer isn't obligated to enforce their rights and can instead seek damages, how a court would rule with a situation where the cost of repair or replacement is more than the value of the goods I don't know.

I would wonder if they can be repaired cheaper else where? Do JL expect the item back? 

If not I'd take the money and see if they can repaired, even if that was with Apple an extra £100 might get a few more years use out of them, if they do want them back I'd see what the cost of independent repair is and claim this value as a price reduction. 

If they can only be repaired by Apple for whatever reason and JL want them back then I guess OP isn't in a great situation, JL are using 6 years to get to £85, hard to save if a £250 pair of headphones should last longer, I would say they should last twice as long but it seems everything is designed to fall apart as quick as possible and people are buying Apple products more for the brand than quality. 

ArbitraryRandom

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would suggest section 24 is relevant to interpretation: 



5b wouldn't be included if a trader couldn't exclude BOTH options under 23(3) (and it doesn't specify only 23(3)a).   

I would suggest repair is disproportionate and replacement is impossible (as the specific generation is no longer in production) 

If they can only be repaired by Apple for whatever reason and JL want them back then I guess OP isn't in a great situation, JL are using 6 years to get to £85, hard to save if a £250 pair of headphones should last longer, I would say they should last twice as long but it seems everything is designed to fall apart as quick as possible and people are buying Apple products more for the brand than quality. 

The issue is the lithium batteries in wireless earphones - I've read several sources suggesting the functional life expectancy is only 3 years (about 1000 charging cycles) 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ArbitraryRandom said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

I would suggest section 24 is relevant to interpretation: 



5b wouldn't be included if a trader couldn't exclude BOTH options under 23(3) (and it doesn't specify only 23(3)a).   

I would suggest repair is disproportionate and replacement is impossible (as the specific generation is no longer in production) 

If they can only be repaired by Apple for whatever reason and JL want them back then I guess OP isn't in a great situation, JL are using 6 years to get to £85, hard to save if a £250 pair of headphones should last longer, I would say they should last twice as long but it seems everything is designed to fall apart as quick as possible and people are buying Apple products more for the brand than quality. 

The issue is the lithium batteries in wireless earphones - I've read several sources suggesting the functional life expectancy is only 3 years (about 1000 charging cycles) 

Wasn't think of wireless, in that case it seems to be style over substance and 6 years may well be generous in this instance

screech_78

StarlightStarbright455 said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, it’s fair as the cost of repairing is disproportionate on a four year old item.

And I can say with 99% certainty that they can’t replace your AirPods. The AirPods you have will be a different model which they will no longer stock. 

So a partial refund is fair. 

They do sell the same model online and in store (AirPods Pro) just the 2nd generation of this same model (which were developed to solve this manufacturing defect, ironically).  

Apple said to me that they would likely swap the defective AirPods for a new or reconditioned 2nd generation pair rather than repair if I’d bought directly with them.  I’d be absolutely fine with a reconditioned pair.  Not sure why JL have refused to deal with Apple on this issue and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone - I asked them to do this.  They are very firm that they get to choose the remedy which is a partial refund and nothing else, so we have reached a deadlock.  

Not sure whether or not to take to ADR or accept the £85…but it will cost me £100+ to buy a new pair which I really can’t afford at the moment.   Expensive lesson learned to avoid JL in the future for Apple/electrical products!  

That’s not the same model. The AirPods Pro they currently stock are this years model with the new USB cable. 

I haven’t seen a case exactly like this with AirPods however have seen a case with a TV go to small claims. Original purchase price was something like £1400, failed after 3.5 years. Repair cost was something like £800 and so went with partial refund. Customer rejected because we could give them a replacement - we couldn’t, it was an updated model at the same price. It went to small claims and a partial refund was deemed as fair. Of course, there’s no precedent set in small claims but after 4 years, I cannot see anyway of you getting JL to replace. They’re fairly low value so you could go down the route of an LBA to see if that nudges them to settle but I don’t know. 

Edited to add: JL won’t use an ADR. 

RefluentBeans

I largely agree with what has been said on here. If that generation of product doesn’t exist anymore then the parts also will have likely gone (other than from donor products - which are often second hand themselves). You can push for a replacement but I think it’s an uphill battle. 

Also worth remembering that as Apple has said, they have no liability to you. Anyone who has felt with Apple will tell you that they look for any reason not to fulfil their liabilities - and so there’s no guarantee you’d be able to get a replacement from them even if they acknowledge the fault. If there’s water damage inside the earphones or case they may say it’s used error. Apple are excellent at saying what they could do in hypothetical situations but when these cases do come up, they do often put barriers in the way. 

You can attempt to sue JL into a full refund - you’d likely get it via a settlement agreement with their solicitors as it wouldn’t be worth the fight to them in court. But of course, they may instruct their solicitors to make a point and fight it. At that point a judge could rule they were right and you’re only going to get a partial refund. JL could also attempt to claim that headphones are consumable and that they can’t be held liable for the whole 6 years. 

The 6 year ‘rule’ is a limitation and not to say every product purchased should last 6 years. A car for example should last more than 6 years, but a pair of socks probably won’t. It’s the case of how long should a pair of AirPods last. Not a clear cut answer and I think the 6 year lifespan they’ve used to calculate the refund amount is actually generous. 

pinkshoes

StarlightStarbright455 said:

They do sell the same model online and in store (AirPods Pro) just the 2nd generation of this same model (which were developed to solve this manufacturing defect, ironically).  

Apple said to me that they would likely swap the defective AirPods for a new or reconditioned 2nd generation pair rather than repair if I’d bought directly with them.  I’d be absolutely fine with a reconditioned pair.  Not sure why JL have refused to deal with Apple on this issue and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone - I asked them to do this.  They are very firm that they get to choose the remedy which is a partial refund and nothing else, so we have reached a deadlock.  

Not sure whether or not to take to ADR or accept the £85…but it will cost me £100+ to buy a new pair which I really can’t afford at the moment.   Expensive lesson learned to avoid JL in the future for Apple/electrical products!  

Just because something costs a lot of money, doesn't mean it lasts a long time!

You've had them nearly 4 years so that is actually quite good and you could quite easily argue that the shelf life for a pair of airpods is around 4 years. The figure of £85 on the grounds of their age is therefore MORE than fair! The £85 is based on them lasting 6 years, and you've had them 4 years, so they've given you a refund for the 2 years of use you didn't get.

Avoid JL?! I think they have been exceptionally generous in their calculation and many other shops would have been within their rights to offer you £0.