We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
John Lewis - Miele vacuum dispute.
Comments
-
I should just suck it up
Yes, but with what?
6 -
🤣 😂😆😍
0 -
I agree, but perhaps JL's position is "the CRA says you the customer should prove it's faulty", and expect the majority of customers will pay up or let it go. Those taking it further are likely to find JL settles, because unless there's obvious signs of it being abused, or it's been used for hours every day by a tradesman and has worn out, it's clearly inherently poorly designed and anyone inspecting it is going to come to that conclusion. That puts JL on the hook for repair/replacement/refund plus the cost of inspection. They will have done the maths and worked out how many pay up, and how many take it further.
0 -
Like local authorities with PCNs.
They rely on 95% of people to pay up to get a discount without challenging it
1 -
How can JL claim wear and tear without actually inspecting the handle mechanism or the rest of the vacuum cleaner to give an informed opinion that it was in fact wear and tear? It 's the usual slap dash response from a low level employee in an effort to bat away any claims and won't likely hold up in court.
Whilst I would agree with you the standard of proof is what the reasonable person might consider satisfactory, it should be against the facts and evidence in front of them. So I agree, an independent third party or expert report is not always necessary, but in some cases it might be.
As a general rule, I would approach the question of needing an independent report like this:
No third party report is needed. If there's visible or obvious defects, then evidence in the form of photographs, video, consumer's own description of the defect and how it came about is all evidence that can be used to show the fault was inherent.
Third party report may be needed. Where the defect is not so obvious, or if there's a question as to whether the defect could be inherent or the issue is a technical one and the court is likely unable to reach any form of conclusion without that evidence, that's when I would consider if a third party report is really needed.
Pretty much all retailers throw out the "get an independent report and then we'll talk" as a way to stall or put up hurdles to make the customer give up. It's not a legal requirement, just their own policy.
@oneilld12 Just a word of caution, before you should entertain legal proceedings you need to have formally rejected the goods and exercised your final right to reject. As it stands, you have asked for a repair or replacement and they have refused, which is in of itself denying your right to a remedy under the CRA. On that basis, you could then move straight to your final right to reject and end the contract.
If you wanted to be seen as reasonable, you may want to give them the opportunity to reconsider their position and issue a replacement. You could even say that if they refuse again, then you will give notice of your final right to reject, tread the contract as at an end and seek damages (compensation) to put you back in the position had the fault not occurred i.e. a replacement handle.
1 -
I did, they appointed external counsel who immediately offered the full amount less issuing fees but hadn't taken instruction on what was to happen to the salvage. I rejected the offer and an hour later they came back with a full settlement offer and confirmation we would retain the salvage.
Ours was slightly different though, they had accepted the freezer was unrepairable but disputed our right to claim for the matching fridge and for the ruined food stuffs. On the later they accepted that the CRA covered damage the faulty goods caused but stated it was limited to kitchen units etc and that consumables were explicitly excluded.
Our issue was the model had been discontinued so getting a matching unit was no longer possible. Plus the Exec Complaints handler wound me up wanting me to quote the relevant part of the CRA, which I did. When I asked them in return to quote the carveout for consumables damaged they said they didnt have to.
1 -
In the end I actually took it to a JL store where they actually cared, they even had a Miele service person in store who went away and got me a replacement.
It's such a sorry story of the soulless world of dealing with companies online.2 -
Thanks for the follow up and well done.
As I said earlier instore JL staff tend to be very good
1 -
Excellent.
As to your last point, I agree, but it's not unexpected when margins are reduced to remain price-competitive. We as consumers have got the service we deserve because so many of us prioritise price, speed and convenience over service.
1 -
Oh yes, thanks to you, it was your comment that gave me the idea to actually go in.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards