John Lewis Refusing Apple Watch Repair within 2 Year Guarantee

Rebmat

Hi There,

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

I have an Apple Watch that I purchased from John Lewis that stopped working within the 2 year guarantee. I took it back to JL and they have stated that it will not be covered as the watch has some scratches and a dent. They have further stated that the repair cost will be £364 - which is more than the cost of the watch! As you can imagine I am not best pleased and it feels like JL are trying to sidestep their obligations. I have sent them the below 'Heads of Claim' which are effectively the reasons why I think they are wrong:

I write with reference to your continued refusal to repair my Apple Watch under the terms of your 2 year guarantee. I consider this a Breach of Contract by John Lewis for the following reasons:

1. GUARANTEE CLAUSE: Despite multiple requests you have failed to identify which clause of your 2 year warranty I have allegedly breached. While you refer to the terms of your guarantee (as sent in your link) to reject the repair, it is your responsibility to explicitly identify the terms you believe have been violated. As a multinational company, the burden falls on you to clarify these terms, considering I am an individual consumer. I wish to emphasise that I do not believe I have breached any aspect of the guarantee.
2. SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE: The position that JLP have taken on this matter is quite frankly absurd. Instead of investigating the issue with my Apple Watch, you have chosen to dismiss it based on superficial scratches and a dent. This is akin to rejecting a warranty claim on a car where the engine isn’t working due to minor bodywork flaws. The superficial wear and tear bears no relevance to the watch's malfunction. I suspect the fault pertains to either charging or screen functionality.
3. CONDITION REPORT: Notwithstanding points 1 and 2, I persist in my assertion that the watch did not sustain the extent of damage now being claimed by John Lewis. This is supported by the 'Receipt for Goods Accepted for Repair' issued by JLP, which explicitly documented the watch's condition upon submission as 'used but with a lightly scratched screen.' There has been no presented evidence to counter this account. The only reasonable explanation is that the difference in damage between submission, and the watches current state, happened whilst the watch was in the possession of JLP.
4. REASONABLE WEAR & TEAR: Even if the watch had the wear and tear JLP alleges upon its deposit (which I contest based on point 3), such a level of wear and tear is not unreasonable for a watch used daily for two years. For instance, the screen remains uncracked, and there is no structural damage affecting the watch's operation. JLP has not provided a clear definition of reasonable wear and tear as per the warranty terms, making this matter subjective and open to interpretation.

Each of the aforementioned points individually refutes JLP's position, constituting a breach of contract, lacking reasonableness, and, frankly, appearing absurd. This is not to mention the impact on reputation, customer service, and the principle of doing what is right.

 Should you persist in refusing to repair my Apple Watch under your warranty, kindly refrain from vague comments from your tech team. Instead, I request a detailed response to the concerns raised above from either your senior management or legal department. A comprehensive response is crucial, as failure to resolve this matter appropriately will lead me to take necessary actions to uphold my consumer rights, including potential legal action in the Small Claims Court.

Any advice on how to get this resolved amicably with JLP? Right now I keep getting fobbed off with vague emails from the Tech Support Team stating:

Please note that any cosmetic damage, such as dents or scratches, unfortunately falls outside of the coverage provided by the guarantee. For additional information on this matter, please refer to the provided link.

Thanks in advance!

Aylesbury_Duck

Rebmat said:

Hi There,

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

I have an Apple Watch that I purchased from John Lewis that stopped working within the 2 year guarantee. I took it back to JL and they have stated that it will not be covered as the watch has some scratches and a dent. They have further stated that the repair cost will be £364 - which is more than the cost of the watch! As you can imagine I am not best pleased and it feels like JL are trying to sidestep their obligations. I have sent them the below 'Heads of Claim' which are effectively the reasons why I think they are wrong:

I write with reference to your continued refusal to repair my Apple Watch under the terms of your 2 year guarantee. I consider this a Breach of Contract by John Lewis for the following reasons:

1. GUARANTEE CLAUSE: Despite multiple requests you have failed to identify which clause of your 2 year warranty I have allegedly breached. While you refer to the terms of your guarantee (as sent in your link) to reject the repair, it is your responsibility to explicitly identify the terms you believe have been violated. As a multinational company, the burden falls on you to clarify these terms, considering I am an individual consumer. I wish to emphasise that I do not believe I have breached any aspect of the guarantee.
2. SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE: The position that JLP have taken on this matter is quite frankly absurd. Instead of investigating the issue with my Apple Watch, you have chosen to dismiss it based on superficial scratches and a dent. This is akin to rejecting a warranty claim on a car where the engine isn’t working due to minor bodywork flaws. The superficial wear and tear bears no relevance to the watch's malfunction. I suspect the fault pertains to either charging or screen functionality.
3. CONDITION REPORT: Notwithstanding points 1 and 2, I persist in my assertion that the watch did not sustain the extent of damage now being claimed by John Lewis. This is supported by the 'Receipt for Goods Accepted for Repair' issued by JLP, which explicitly documented the watch's condition upon submission as 'used but with a lightly scratched screen.' There has been no presented evidence to counter this account. The only reasonable explanation is that the difference in damage between submission, and the watches current state, happened whilst the watch was in the possession of JLP.
4. REASONABLE WEAR & TEAR: Even if the watch had the wear and tear JLP alleges upon its deposit (which I contest based on point 3), such a level of wear and tear is not unreasonable for a watch used daily for two years. For instance, the screen remains uncracked, and there is no structural damage affecting the watch's operation. JLP has not provided a clear definition of reasonable wear and tear as per the warranty terms, making this matter subjective and open to interpretation.

Each of the aforementioned points individually refutes JLP's position, constituting a breach of contract, lacking reasonableness, and, frankly, appearing absurd. This is not to mention the impact on reputation, customer service, and the principle of doing what is right.

 Should you persist in refusing to repair my Apple Watch under your warranty, kindly refrain from vague comments from your tech team. Instead, I request a detailed response to the concerns raised above from either your senior management or legal department. A comprehensive response is crucial, as failure to resolve this matter appropriately will lead me to take necessary actions to uphold my consumer rights, including potential legal action in the Small Claims Court.

Any advice on how to get this resolved amicably with JLP? Right now I keep getting fobbed off with vague emails from the Tech Support Team stating:

Please note that any cosmetic damage, such as dents or scratches, unfortunately falls outside of the coverage provided by the guarantee. For additional information on this matter, please refer to the provided link.

Thanks in advance!

I don't think that's compatible with the content and tone of your letter.

It looks to me that you've exhausted the usual processes already, so you're going to have to see through your threat of small claims court action.

Mark_d

Have you escalated via the John Lewis complaints process?  You'll likely hear them say "the complaints team will just tell you the same as I'm telling you" but I've found the complaints team to be very reasonable.

If you get nowhere then I'd suggest the next step is a Section 75 claim with your credit card company.

ArbitraryRandom

Agreed, I wouldn't threaten small claims as yet - depending where you are in the process, either make a formal complaint and replace that line with a request for their complaints procedure, or if you've already done that a deadlock letter - then once you have the deadlock letter try your card company. You can always send a LBA and take to the courts at a later stage. 

Saves you the filing fee and a decent chance at success. 

screech_78

The guarantee doesn’t cover accidental damage. So if your product has accidental damage such as dents or scratches, your guarantee is void. You don’t have a valid claim on this as it’s over and above your statutory rights. 

So that leaves you with claiming on your consumer rights, however if you purchased more than 6 months ago, you’re going to need an independent report which states the fault isn’t due to mis-use. You’d be amazed how dents can affect the inner workings of a product. If your claim was successful, JL could then repair, replace (if they stock the same model) or provide a partial refund to take into account usage. It’s going to be up to you to prove your case. 

The letter you’ve written is really inflammatory and isn’t going to give you any goodwill. You could escalate, email the Chairman or CEO. But I’m fairly sure you’ll get the same answers. 

littleboo

screech_78 said:

The guarantee doesn’t cover accidental damage. So if your product has accidental damage such as dents or scratches, your guarantee is void. You don’t have a valid claim on this as it’s over and above your statutory rights. 

So that leaves you with claiming on your consumer rights, however if you purchased more than 6 months ago, you’re going to need an independent report which states the fault isn’t due to mis-use. You’d be amazed how dents can affect the inner workings of a product. If your claim was successful, JL could then repair, replace (if they stock the same model) or provide a partial refund to take into account usage. It’s going to be up to you to prove your case. 

The letter you’ve written is really inflammatory and isn’t going to give you any goodwill. You could escalate, email the Chairman or CEO. But I’m fairly sure you’ll get the same answers. 

I'm not sure that's correct. It's quite normal for a watch to pick up scratches and other cosmetic damage during normal use. The watch should still work if its "reasonable", however that's defined The question is whether the damage has caused the watch to stop working, or if the failure of the watch is unrelated to the damage. The earlier car analogy is relevant.
JL don't seem to have stated that they consider that the reason the watch has failed is due to damage beyond what would be considered normal, they described it as "used but with a slightly scratched screen"

powerful_Rogue

littleboo said:

screech_78 said:

The guarantee doesn’t cover accidental damage. So if your product has accidental damage such as dents or scratches, your guarantee is void. You don’t have a valid claim on this as it’s over and above your statutory rights. 

So that leaves you with claiming on your consumer rights, however if you purchased more than 6 months ago, you’re going to need an independent report which states the fault isn’t due to mis-use. You’d be amazed how dents can affect the inner workings of a product. If your claim was successful, JL could then repair, replace (if they stock the same model) or provide a partial refund to take into account usage. It’s going to be up to you to prove your case. 

The letter you’ve written is really inflammatory and isn’t going to give you any goodwill. You could escalate, email the Chairman or CEO. But I’m fairly sure you’ll get the same answers. 

I'm not sure that's correct. It's quite normal for a watch to pick up scratches and other cosmetic damage during normal use. The watch should still work if its "reasonable", however that's defined The question is whether the damage has caused the watch to stop working, or if the failure of the watch is unrelated to the damage. The earlier car analogy is relevant.
JL don't seem to have stated that they consider that the reason the watch has failed is due to damage beyond what would be considered normal, they described it as "used but with a slightly scratched screen"

Don't forget the mention of a dent, which implies impact. Could very easily be the reason the watch has stopped working.

powerful_Rogue

Rebmat said:

Hi There,

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

I have an Apple Watch that I purchased from John Lewis that stopped working within the 2 year guarantee. I took it back to JL and they have stated that it will not be covered as the watch has some scratches and a dent. They have further stated that the repair cost will be £364 - which is more than the cost of the watch! As you can imagine I am not best pleased and it feels like JL are trying to sidestep their obligations. I have sent them the below 'Heads of Claim' which are effectively the reasons why I think they are wrong:

I write with reference to your continued refusal to repair my Apple Watch under the terms of your 2 year guarantee. I consider this a Breach of Contract by John Lewis for the following reasons:

1. GUARANTEE CLAUSE: Despite multiple requests you have failed to identify which clause of your 2 year warranty I have allegedly breached. While you refer to the terms of your guarantee (as sent in your link) to reject the repair, it is your responsibility to explicitly identify the terms you believe have been violated. As a multinational company, the burden falls on you to clarify these terms, considering I am an individual consumer. I wish to emphasise that I do not believe I have breached any aspect of the guarantee.
2. SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE: The position that JLP have taken on this matter is quite frankly absurd. Instead of investigating the issue with my Apple Watch, you have chosen to dismiss it based on superficial scratches and a dent. This is akin to rejecting a warranty claim on a car where the engine isn’t working due to minor bodywork flaws. The superficial wear and tear bears no relevance to the watch's malfunction. I suspect the fault pertains to either charging or screen functionality.
3. CONDITION REPORT: Notwithstanding points 1 and 2, I persist in my assertion that the watch did not sustain the extent of damage now being claimed by John Lewis. This is supported by the 'Receipt for Goods Accepted for Repair' issued by JLP, which explicitly documented the watch's condition upon submission as 'used but with a lightly scratched screen.' There has been no presented evidence to counter this account. The only reasonable explanation is that the difference in damage between submission, and the watches current state, happened whilst the watch was in the possession of JLP.
4. REASONABLE WEAR & TEAR: Even if the watch had the wear and tear JLP alleges upon its deposit (which I contest based on point 3), such a level of wear and tear is not unreasonable for a watch used daily for two years. For instance, the screen remains uncracked, and there is no structural damage affecting the watch's operation. JLP has not provided a clear definition of reasonable wear and tear as per the warranty terms, making this matter subjective and open to interpretation.

Each of the aforementioned points individually refutes JLP's position, constituting a breach of contract, lacking reasonableness, and, frankly, appearing absurd. This is not to mention the impact on reputation, customer service, and the principle of doing what is right.

 Should you persist in refusing to repair my Apple Watch under your warranty, kindly refrain from vague comments from your tech team. Instead, I request a detailed response to the concerns raised above from either your senior management or legal department. A comprehensive response is crucial, as failure to resolve this matter appropriately will lead me to take necessary actions to uphold my consumer rights, including potential legal action in the Small Claims Court.

Any advice on how to get this resolved amicably with JLP? Right now I keep getting fobbed off with vague emails from the Tech Support Team stating:

Please note that any cosmetic damage, such as dents or scratches, unfortunately falls outside of the coverage provided by the guarantee. For additional information on this matter, please refer to the provided link.

Thanks in advance!

It's an awful letter. So many misguided errors. Never heard you catch more flies with honey then you do vinegar?

In your opening post you stated it has scratches and a dent, so why are you trying to dispute this with JL?

You're also mixing up your consumer rights vs the rights of the guarantee.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't respond and wait for you to start small claims court action, as you've stated you want contact from their legal team.

Maybe show us some photos of the damage?

RefluentBeans

powerful_Rogue said:

Rebmat said:

Hi There,

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

I have an Apple Watch that I purchased from John Lewis that stopped working within the 2 year guarantee. I took it back to JL and they have stated that it will not be covered as the watch has some scratches and a dent. They have further stated that the repair cost will be £364 - which is more than the cost of the watch! As you can imagine I am not best pleased and it feels like JL are trying to sidestep their obligations. I have sent them the below 'Heads of Claim' which are effectively the reasons why I think they are wrong:

I write with reference to your continued refusal to repair my Apple Watch under the terms of your 2 year guarantee. I consider this a Breach of Contract by John Lewis for the following reasons:

1. GUARANTEE CLAUSE: Despite multiple requests you have failed to identify which clause of your 2 year warranty I have allegedly breached. While you refer to the terms of your guarantee (as sent in your link) to reject the repair, it is your responsibility to explicitly identify the terms you believe have been violated. As a multinational company, the burden falls on you to clarify these terms, considering I am an individual consumer. I wish to emphasise that I do not believe I have breached any aspect of the guarantee.
2. SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE: The position that JLP have taken on this matter is quite frankly absurd. Instead of investigating the issue with my Apple Watch, you have chosen to dismiss it based on superficial scratches and a dent. This is akin to rejecting a warranty claim on a car where the engine isn’t working due to minor bodywork flaws. The superficial wear and tear bears no relevance to the watch's malfunction. I suspect the fault pertains to either charging or screen functionality.
3. CONDITION REPORT: Notwithstanding points 1 and 2, I persist in my assertion that the watch did not sustain the extent of damage now being claimed by John Lewis. This is supported by the 'Receipt for Goods Accepted for Repair' issued by JLP, which explicitly documented the watch's condition upon submission as 'used but with a lightly scratched screen.' There has been no presented evidence to counter this account. The only reasonable explanation is that the difference in damage between submission, and the watches current state, happened whilst the watch was in the possession of JLP.
4. REASONABLE WEAR & TEAR: Even if the watch had the wear and tear JLP alleges upon its deposit (which I contest based on point 3), such a level of wear and tear is not unreasonable for a watch used daily for two years. For instance, the screen remains uncracked, and there is no structural damage affecting the watch's operation. JLP has not provided a clear definition of reasonable wear and tear as per the warranty terms, making this matter subjective and open to interpretation.

Each of the aforementioned points individually refutes JLP's position, constituting a breach of contract, lacking reasonableness, and, frankly, appearing absurd. This is not to mention the impact on reputation, customer service, and the principle of doing what is right.

 Should you persist in refusing to repair my Apple Watch under your warranty, kindly refrain from vague comments from your tech team. Instead, I request a detailed response to the concerns raised above from either your senior management or legal department. A comprehensive response is crucial, as failure to resolve this matter appropriately will lead me to take necessary actions to uphold my consumer rights, including potential legal action in the Small Claims Court.

Any advice on how to get this resolved amicably with JLP? Right now I keep getting fobbed off with vague emails from the Tech Support Team stating:

Please note that any cosmetic damage, such as dents or scratches, unfortunately falls outside of the coverage provided by the guarantee. For additional information on this matter, please refer to the provided link.

Thanks in advance!

It's an awful letter. So many misguided errors. Never heard you catch more flies with honey then you do vinegar?

In your opening post you stated it has scratches and a dent, so why are you trying to dispute this with JL?

You're also mixing up your consumer rights vs the rights of the guarantee.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't respond and wait for you to start small claims court action, as you've stated you want contact from their legal team.

Maybe show us some photos of the damage?

100% agree with this. Mixing and matching the two (warranty and Consumer Rights) leads to confusion from both sides. One has legal backing (consumer rights) and one is above the legal rights (warranty). Conflating the two leads to the appearance that the warranty is underwritten by the law. Of course, they can’t break their own terms and conditions. 

littleboo

powerful_Rogue said:

littleboo said:

screech_78 said:

The guarantee doesn’t cover accidental damage. So if your product has accidental damage such as dents or scratches, your guarantee is void. You don’t have a valid claim on this as it’s over and above your statutory rights. 

So that leaves you with claiming on your consumer rights, however if you purchased more than 6 months ago, you’re going to need an independent report which states the fault isn’t due to mis-use. You’d be amazed how dents can affect the inner workings of a product. If your claim was successful, JL could then repair, replace (if they stock the same model) or provide a partial refund to take into account usage. It’s going to be up to you to prove your case. 

The letter you’ve written is really inflammatory and isn’t going to give you any goodwill. You could escalate, email the Chairman or CEO. But I’m fairly sure you’ll get the same answers. 

I'm not sure that's correct. It's quite normal for a watch to pick up scratches and other cosmetic damage during normal use. The watch should still work if its "reasonable", however that's defined The question is whether the damage has caused the watch to stop working, or if the failure of the watch is unrelated to the damage. The earlier car analogy is relevant.
JL don't seem to have stated that they consider that the reason the watch has failed is due to damage beyond what would be considered normal, they described it as "used but with a slightly scratched screen"

Don't forget the mention of a dent, which implies impact. Could very easily be the reason the watch has stopped working.

Yes quite possibly. In that case it would be helpful if JL clearly stated that the watch failure was caused by physical damage above and beyond normal wear and tear and therefore excluded from the warranty. Talk of "cosmetic" damage is not helpful before cosmetic means just that, it doesn't impair operation.

Okell

It seems to me the problem the OP has is the "dent".

As others have said a "dent" implies a reasonably significant impact and I certainly wouldn't describe a dent in a watch as either superficial or cosmetic.  A dent in a watch is not the same as a dent in a car's bodywork.  An impact sufficient enough to bring about a dent in an Apple watch could easily damage it internally and impair its function.  A dent would be an easy get out from any guarantee or warranty excluding owner damage and very difficult for a consumer to dispute without an independent report showing that the dent (or whatever caused it) had nothing to do with the watch's malfunction.