Consumer right act help John Lewis sony headphones

kimahri277

Bought sony heaphones at a John Lewis store in Scotland by in December 2021 and the left one now suffers severe battery drain having had them for 2 years. They are the Sony wf1000 xm4 where I discuovered online that it seems to be a very common issue with this model. It is outside the 2 year warranty so manufacturer is wiping their hands of it. I feel this is of unsatisfactory quailty for a £200 pair of headphones fail just after two years of use. The left headphone will last just over an hour thirty while the other is on near sixty percent.

Some links to the issue (Seems I cant post links yet as I'm new)

theverge.com/2023/7/25/23806918/sony-wf-1000xm5-earbuds-battery-drain-statement

reddit.com/r/SonyHeadphones/comments/x7mx2n/wf1000xm4_severe_battery_issues/?sort=new

sony-mea.com/en/electronics/support/wireless-headphones-bluetooth-headphones/wf-1000xm4/articles/00283656 - The fixes didnt help

I contact John Lewis and they ask for an engineers report which says the following

"Left earbud appears to have developed a fault with its battery which appears to be a common issue on these models. The battery is draining up to 5 times faster than the right earbud and the issue is more apparent when noise cancellation is active. In terms of condition of item there are no signs of excessive wear and tear and no signs of attempted repair so it does just seem to be a defective unit."

and they give me the following response

"After reviewing the report, it seems that there is no evidence of a known issue or a previous repair associated with your case. As per our policy, in order for claim to be considered valid, there needs to be a documentation of a previous repair. In absence of such evidence, we are unable to proceed with your claim."

I respond with the following

"Sorry I'm confused. Why does there have to be a sign of a previous repair? I'm not claiming for a faulty repair. I'm making a claim under the consumer rights law for unsatisfactory quality, not as described, not fit for purpose. 

There is an inherant fault in the left ear bud as it doesn't keep the same charge as the other which has developed over time. It is of unsatisfactory quality for a £200 per of headphones for one to suffer excessive battery drain only after 2 years of light use. The report indicates no miss use and no signs of excessive wear and tear and highlights its appears to be a common issue in the model. When the one ear bud dies it's not fit for purpose as it doesn't work while the other one does. It's also no where close to the description of how long the battery should last and want to exercise my right to a repair or replacement".

They then respond with

"After carefully reviewing our case, I can see that there might be some confusion regarding the requirements outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is important to note that in order to proceed with a claim under that, a documentation of a prior repair is necessary. This is in accordance with our policy and the legal framework set forth by the Consumer Rights Act. As per the requirements of the law, your report confirms a fault has developed, but does not confirm it was present from the point of sale. Therefore, in order to proceed with a claim, one prior repair would need to have taken place."

Have I any case? Have I just worded myself poorly? I would liken the fault to a tyre with a slow puncture it might take a while before the tyre goes flat but the fault is there from the start. The engineers report highlights no sign of excessive wear and tear and me reading it would constitute to not being damaged through use to result in the fault.

screech_78

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now. 

After 6 months, the onus on you to prove an inherent fault - your report pretty much confirms this (as long as it’s from a reliable source that can be verified). John Lewis have the option of repairing or replacing, however if this is disproportionate to offering a refund, they can provide a partial refund to account for usage. 

My best advice would be to escalate - you can find contact details for the chairman or CEO by googling.

PHK

I disagree, that report is poor. It just states that one earbuds has apparently developed a fault. i.e it's speculation. There's no detail of how it was tested what has caused the fault and that it is or is not inherent.

In fact it reads like the engineer just wrote down what was said to them. OP if you paid for that report, I'd get your money back. 

You need a proper report that states the name and qualifications of the engineer, how the buds were tested, the test results, what is causing the drain and how that came about. 

If the report states that the buds are inherently faulty then you have a case. 

However, what remedy are you seeking? A battery lifespan is generally considered to be about two years and it will have reached 80% capacity in ideal conditions. 

ThumbRemote

PHK said:

You need a proper report that states the name and qualifications of the engineer, how the buds were tested, the test results, what is causing the drain and how that came about. 

Where do you get those requirements from? It's almost certain that no engineer can diagnose a fault to that level without destroying the headphones in the process of getting to the internal PCB and battery. 

Small claims court is based on the balance of probabilities. The engineers report indicates that there is no sign of user damage, so on the balance of probabilities it's an inherent fault. 

Of course, the retailer / manufacturer can produce their own report using the more specialist tools and knowledge they have at their disposal. This would then be their defence, tipping the balance of probabilities back in their favour. 

What the retailer cannot do is make up some meaningless guff about previous repairs. 

sj499

Hi 

Sony has a recall on those, call them and they’ll replace for free.

kimahri277

sj499 said:

Hi 

Sony has a recall on those, call them and they’ll replace for free.

I havent seen anything mentioned about a recall? When I contacted them they said it was over 2 years for a warranty and didn't want to hear anything more on it

Okell

screech_78 said:

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now...

I wonder if the OP might have worded their claim to JL poorly, and JL have misunderstood?

The response from JL reads as if they think the OP is asking for a refund**.  I wonder if they are trying to say - again poorly - that the OP is not entitled to a refund under the legislation unless there has been a previous replacement or repair attempt?

What has happened to JL customer services?  They seem nowadays to be taking the default position of refusing legitimate consumer complaints out of hand.


** It isn't clear to me if the OP has asked JL for a repair or a replacement, or if he's simply asked for a refund

screech_78

Okell said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now...

I wonder if the OP might have worded their claim to JL poorly, and JL have misunderstood?

The response from JL reads as if they think the OP is asking for a refund**.  I wonder if they are trying to say - again poorly - that the OP is not entitled to a refund under the legislation unless there has been a previous replacement or repair attempt?

What has happened to JL customer services?  They seem nowadays to be taking the default position of refusing legitimate consumer complaints out of hand.


** It isn't clear to me if the OP has asked JL for a repair or a replacement, or if he's simply asked for a refund

Possibly, but I don’t understand why they can’t explain it clearly. I’ve seen the exact same wording from other posters on this forum and it comes from the same team. 

I still think the OP should escalate. No guarantees, but best option at this stage. 

kimahri277

Okell said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now...

I wonder if the OP might have worded their claim to JL poorly, and JL have misunderstood?

The response from JL reads as if they think the OP is asking for a refund**.  I wonder if they are trying to say - again poorly - that the OP is not entitled to a refund under the legislation unless there has been a previous replacement or repair attempt?

What has happened to JL customer services?  They seem nowadays to be taking the default position of refusing legitimate consumer complaints out of hand.


** It isn't clear to me if the OP has asked JL for a repair or a replacement, or if he's simply asked for a refund

I had that thought and sorry should have added it in that I said for clarifaction the following and then the last quote from them was the response

Yes that is exactly what I am asking for. For your one chance to repair or replace as it is longer than 6 months. I'm not asking for a refund at this time.

Okell

screech_78 said:

Okell said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now...

I wonder if the OP might have worded their claim to JL poorly, and JL have misunderstood?

The response from JL reads as if they think the OP is asking for a refund**.  I wonder if they are trying to say - again poorly - that the OP is not entitled to a refund under the legislation unless there has been a previous replacement or repair attempt?

What has happened to JL customer services?  They seem nowadays to be taking the default position of refusing legitimate consumer complaints out of hand.


** It isn't clear to me if the OP has asked JL for a repair or a replacement, or if he's simply asked for a refund

Possibly, but I don’t understand why they can’t explain it clearly. I’ve seen the exact same wording from other posters on this forum and it comes from the same team. 

I still think the OP should escalate. No guarantees, but best option at this stage. 

Have they outsourced their customer services to outside the UK?

Let's face it not only does - "After carefully reviewing our case, I can see that there might be some confusion regarding the requirements outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is important to note that in order to proceed with a claim under that, a documentation of a prior repair is necessary. This is in accordance with our policy and the legal framework set forth by the Consumer Rights Act" - not accurately reflect the legislation, it also appears to have been written by someone with only a passing familiarity with the English language...

screech_78

Okell said:

screech_78 said:

Okell said:

screech_78 said:

Yes, you have a case. 

I don’t know where they get needing to have had a precious repair from. I’ve seen this more than once now...

I wonder if the OP might have worded their claim to JL poorly, and JL have misunderstood?

The response from JL reads as if they think the OP is asking for a refund**.  I wonder if they are trying to say - again poorly - that the OP is not entitled to a refund under the legislation unless there has been a previous replacement or repair attempt?

What has happened to JL customer services?  They seem nowadays to be taking the default position of refusing legitimate consumer complaints out of hand.


** It isn't clear to me if the OP has asked JL for a repair or a replacement, or if he's simply asked for a refund

Possibly, but I don’t understand why they can’t explain it clearly. I’ve seen the exact same wording from other posters on this forum and it comes from the same team. 

I still think the OP should escalate. No guarantees, but best option at this stage. 

Have they outsourced their customer services to outside the UK?

Let's face it not only does - "After carefully reviewing our case, I can see that there might be some confusion regarding the requirements outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is important to note that in order to proceed with a claim under that, a documentation of a prior repair is necessary. This is in accordance with our policy and the legal framework set forth by the Consumer Rights Act" - not accurately reflect the legislation, it also appears to have been written by someone with only a passing familiarity with the English language...

Front line customer service, yes. However the technical support team are based in the UK.