Need help with a faulty TV, out of warranty but manufacturer has authorised an uplift with the selle

Okell

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

... Somehow, this thread has turned into an air of me being the villain, rather than a consumer. That I've pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, to get something I'm not entitled to. Yet Panasonic and then JL both provided me with the same result, in effect an offer of a refund. So whatever I'm legally entitled to is really neither here nor there...

I don't think anybody is criticising you or casting you as the villain - it's just that most posters here with some knowledge of consumer rights are astonished at the responses you got from both JL and Panasonic.

If you look for John Lewis threads on here, I think you'll find that what you got is an unprecedented result.  They'll routinely apply a straightline "depreciation" across a 6 year product life so that if it lasts 3 years you'll get 50% back; 4 years you'll get one third back etc.  That's common practice as the law basically doesn't allow you any remedy after 6 years.  Doesn't matter how faulty the item is.  The reduction in refund as time passes applies from 6 months after purchase and can be thought of a rental or hire fee for the use of the item.

So you've basically had a free TV at no cost for over 6 years.  Nobody's criticising you.  On the contrary, congratulations.

screech_78 said:

... My feeling is that Panasonic messed up and have offered something they shouldn’t have done... 

This ^^^^.

Although it doesn't explain JL falling victim to some sort of folie a deux

screech_78

Okell said:

FactoryFaultOLED18 said:

... Somehow, this thread has turned into an air of me being the villain, rather than a consumer. That I've pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, to get something I'm not entitled to. Yet Panasonic and then JL both provided me with the same result, in effect an offer of a refund. So whatever I'm legally entitled to is really neither here nor there...

I don't think anybody is criticising you or casting you as the villain - it's just that most posters here with some knowledge of consumer rights are astonished at the responses you got from both JL and Panasonic.

If you look for John Lewis threads on here, I think you'll find that what you got is an unprecedented result.  They'll routinely apply a straightline "depreciation" across a 6 year product life so that if it lasts 3 years you'll get 50% back; 4 years you'll get one third back etc.  That's common practice as the law basically doesn't allow you any remedy after 6 years.  Doesn't matter how faulty the item is.  The reduction in refund as time passes applies from 6 months after purchase and can be thought of a rental or hire fee for the use of the item.

So you've basically had a free TV at no cost for over 6 years.  Nobody's criticising you.  On the contrary, congratulations.

screech_78 said:

... My feeling is that Panasonic messed up and have offered something they shouldn’t have done... 

This ^^^^.

Although it doesn't explain JL falling victim to some sort of folie a deux

I’m sure they’ve acted on the uplift number. When that is granted, it means JL will get some of the cost back (not the original sale price as the OP previously advised) but it just doesn't happen after 6 years. You’d be lucky if it happened in the 3rd year, unless still covered by a manufacturer’s warranty. I feel like Panasonic has assumed the OP is still covered by some sort of warranty. It’s the only explanation. 

The OP has won a watch though. A free TV for 6 years is really something. And they’ll have a new 5 year warranty on the TV they’ve purchased with the gift card. 

DullGreyGuy

screech_78 said:

There is no process for anything like this though. None and I don’t think any other retailer would have provided you with a speedier resolution. 

My feeling is that Panasonic messed up and have offered something they shouldn’t have done. 

I’m pleased you got a good outcome, I really am. And I have never once said or thought you were trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I don’t think there’s any need to call people clowns though. 

Appreciate it was slightly different as my Samsung TV was about 5.25 years old when it was written off but they too gave Currys an uplift number and I too got a voucher for 100% of its original sale value. I had a lot less hassle than the OP getting it, as soon as I had the uplift number Curry's immediately issued the voucher... they even said I could go in store before receiving the email with the code and the store would be able to look it up. 

It is certainly unusual but not totally unprecedented. Obviously have no idea the commercial relationship between the parties but the advisor on behalf of Samsung advised Currys were obliged to provide a full refund and they did so without any contest. 

screech_78

DullGreyGuy said:

screech_78 said:

There is no process for anything like this though. None and I don’t think any other retailer would have provided you with a speedier resolution. 

My feeling is that Panasonic messed up and have offered something they shouldn’t have done. 

I’m pleased you got a good outcome, I really am. And I have never once said or thought you were trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I don’t think there’s any need to call people clowns though. 

Appreciate it was slightly different as my Samsung TV was about 5.25 years old when it was written off but they too gave Currys an uplift number and I too got a voucher for 100% of its original sale value. I had a lot less hassle than the OP getting it, as soon as I had the uplift number Curry's immediately issued the voucher... they even said I could go in store before receiving the email with the code and the store would be able to look it up. 

It is certainly unusual but not totally unprecedented. Obviously have no idea the commercial relationship between the parties but the advisor on behalf of Samsung advised Currys were obliged to provide a full refund and they did so without any contest. 

Like I said, just not something I’ve seen before. And Samsung are usually one of the most challenging suppliers to deal with.