John Lewis Mattress Warranty Weaselling

Grumpy_chap

I am struggling to follow this and finding my current understanding is unbelievable!

The OP (or a close associate) is an employee of JL and able to take advantage of employee discount.
The OP purchased a mattress for £539 (after applying the employee discount).
The OP had the use of the mattress for 30 months.
The mattress now has a fault, which has been accepted by JL.
JL have offered a refund of the original price paid, £539 (in full, no reduction for the value of beneficial use to date which JL would be entitled to make).
This is an exceptional offer by JL.  One to bite their hand off for.
The OP remains unhappy.
The OP is willing to put their (or their close associate's) job on the line by threatening legal actions for an improved outcome.

I really must have misunderstood the thread because the above sequence of events really would be quite astonishing 
Can the OP clarify?

MyRealNameToo

Grumpy_chap said:

I am struggling to follow this and finding my current understanding is unbelievable!

The OP (or a close associate) is an employee of JL and able to take advantage of employee discount.
The OP purchased a mattress for £539 (after applying the employee discount).
The OP had the use of the mattress for 30 months.
The mattress now has a fault, which has been accepted by JL.
JL have offered a refund of the original price paid, £539 (in full, no reduction for the value of beneficial use to date which JL would be entitled to make).
This is an exceptional offer by JL.  One to bite their hand off for.
The OP remains unhappy.
The OP is willing to put their (or their close associate's) job on the line by threatening legal actions for an improved outcome.

I really must have misunderstood the thread because the above sequence of events really would be quite astonishing 
Can the OP clarify?

The only bit you are missing is that what they consider to be a like for like (noting that its not the same model as now advertised as hemp rather than wool) now with partner discount is going to be circa £650 

They probably dont consider that a consumer rights issue should put their associate's job on the line given they arent alleging any miss-selling or similar from said associate. 

Grumpy_chap

MyRealNameToo said:

The only bit you are missing is that what they consider to be a like for like (noting that its not the same model as now advertised as hemp rather than wool) now with partner discount is going to be circa £650 

They probably dont consider that a consumer rights issue should put their associate's job on the line given they arent alleging any miss-selling or similar from said associate. 

Well, consumer rights have been met or exceeded in this case as the OP has been put back in the position they were before they purchased the mattress with the full refund that has been offered.
That is already an exceptional position, given the OP has had 30 months' use of a mattress and JL have not applied any depreciation.
With the £539, the OP is free to purchase any mattress from anywhere.
I am still finding the OP's stance unbelievable.  That would be my take if this was a regular consumer.  I simply find it even more unbelievable given the OP's (or close associate's) status as an employee and the risk of creating potential jeopardy to that status.

saajan_12

Aylesbury_Duck said:

UnHappyMattressMan said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Under your consumer rights you would be entitled to a refund of what you paid minus the use you received form the goods before the failure. Using JL's normal methods that would mean you would get 42/72ths of your original price but in cash rather than credit. 

If the model is no longer available then a like for like replacement isnt possible as under the CRA it should be the same not just similar and similarly these type of things are typically "repairable". Obviously parties can agree to whatever they want but you can't force "something similar" as a replacement through the courts as that isnt what your right is. 

The Warranty is a different matter and in these sorts of circumstances can often be more generous than the CRA but you would need to read what the warranty actually states. 

Credit card just replicates your statutory rights to your credit card company, they would be offering a refund of less than £539 because it would reflect the 2.5 years use you got before it went faulty. 

What credit are they actually offering? £539 or £719? or is it £539 but you still have the partner discount so effectively its still £719?

CRA would give you £314.40 cash using JL's method, you could argue thats a bit low but court cases on how "use" should be calculated are thin on the ground.

They are offering £539, we still have the partnership discount so we can buy a £719 mattress, but its worse than the one we have:

This is the crux of it, I think.  You started in the position of being able to buy £719 worth of product for £539.  If they return £539 to you, you are able to buy £719 of product for £539.  After over two years of use they're giving you a full refund.  That seems more than fair to me.  Prices change all the time.  I'm sure you wouldn't feel hard done by if this was a technical product, where prices can sometimes reduce in absolute terms over two years, even for superior specifications, and you were offered a full refund and were able to buy a better model and have change.  I bought a non-smart HD TV for £600 several years ago.  Today, £600 would buy me a smart, 4K TV with a larger screen.

As much as you can't believe JL won't budge over £150, I'm a little surprised that you're prepared to get into a protracted (and possibly legal) argument with you or your partner's employer, over the same sum.

Well that's the starting position, but then OP contracted to buy a mattress, so their new position is having a mattress of xyz spec. Just in terms of fairness, it would be fair to put OP back into that position which both sides willingly entered into, which is also what a repair or replacement would result in. 

Granted the consumer rights give the retailer the right (!) to choose a refund instead, but I wouldn't be blaming the OP for feeling aggrieved by that. In this case the warranty may help more (OP, you do need to read the terms exactly). 

sheramber

saajan_12 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

UnHappyMattressMan said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Under your consumer rights you would be entitled to a refund of what you paid minus the use you received form the goods before the failure. Using JL's normal methods that would mean you would get 42/72ths of your original price but in cash rather than credit. 

If the model is no longer available then a like for like replacement isnt possible as under the CRA it should be the same not just similar and similarly these type of things are typically "repairable". Obviously parties can agree to whatever they want but you can't force "something similar" as a replacement through the courts as that isnt what your right is. 

The Warranty is a different matter and in these sorts of circumstances can often be more generous than the CRA but you would need to read what the warranty actually states. 

Credit card just replicates your statutory rights to your credit card company, they would be offering a refund of less than £539 because it would reflect the 2.5 years use you got before it went faulty. 

What credit are they actually offering? £539 or £719? or is it £539 but you still have the partner discount so effectively its still £719?

CRA would give you £314.40 cash using JL's method, you could argue thats a bit low but court cases on how "use" should be calculated are thin on the ground.

They are offering £539, we still have the partnership discount so we can buy a £719 mattress, but its worse than the one we have:

This is the crux of it, I think.  You started in the position of being able to buy £719 worth of product for £539.  If they return £539 to you, you are able to buy £719 of product for £539.  After over two years of use they're giving you a full refund.  That seems more than fair to me.  Prices change all the time.  I'm sure you wouldn't feel hard done by if this was a technical product, where prices can sometimes reduce in absolute terms over two years, even for superior specifications, and you were offered a full refund and were able to buy a better model and have change.  I bought a non-smart HD TV for £600 several years ago.  Today, £600 would buy me a smart, 4K TV with a larger screen.

As much as you can't believe JL won't budge over £150, I'm a little surprised that you're prepared to get into a protracted (and possibly legal) argument with you or your partner's employer, over the same sum.

Well that's the starting position, but then OP contracted to buy a mattress, so their new position is having a mattress of xyz spec. Just in terms of fairness, it would be fair to put OP back into that position which both sides willingly entered into, which is also what a repair or replacement would result in. 

Granted the consumer rights give the retailer the right (!) to choose a refund instead, but I wouldn't be blaming the OP for feeling aggrieved by that. In this case the warranty may help more (OP, you do need to read the terms exactly). 

I thought the OP was getting a refund under the warranty as CR would allow the retailer to deduct for the use he has had, which they have not done. 

It would appear the mattress cannot be repaired. It cannot be replaced as it is no longer available, leaving a refund. 

The partner discount cannot be repaid but the OP can use the partner discount on a new mattress bought from JL.