John Lewis - OLED Screen Fault

[FruitSalad1010]

What DX has written is accurate if you were to embark upon enforcing your statuatory rights but what of the 5-year guarantee on all TVs.

 

Asking for a contribution to the repair at this stage seems somewhat overly generous.

 

Having reviewed JL's 5 year TV guarantee here it mentions no exclusion for a panel fault issue. If you are in receipt of the engineers report this is clear evidence you were sold faulty goods.

 

What is written is the following:

 

Quote

Claiming on your guarantee

If your product develops a fault:

1. Look for any obvious reasons for the breakdown and consult the troubleshooting guide in the manufacturer's handbook or on their website
2. If that doesn't resolve the issue, please contact our technical support team who will be happy to help:

•     Call 0330 123 0106, 8am - 9pm weekdays, 8am - 8pm Saturdays and 10am - 6pm Sundays (call charges will depend on your telephone provider)
•     Please have your model number and date of purchase to hand when you call. You'll find all of this information on your original receipt – this acts as your guarantee, so please make sure you keep it safe

If we can't repair your TV, we'll replace it with a TV of equivalent specification. If no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value, and we'll always do our best to make sure you're satisfied with the outcome.

 

Provided you can prove your date of purchase falls within the guarantee period I see no reason why you cannot insist on enforcing the guarantee detailed on their website. To not honour the guarantee may leave JL liable for having mis-sold or falsely advertised their products.

 

Clearly having had the TV assessed by an available, trained and approved repairer and the fact JL are likely to be able to pay the costs of the repair I see no clear reason why JL cannot have it repaired as their guarantee indicates they would.

 

Pay little attention to the current position of JL. I have personally followed pre-action protocol against them twice in the past year and indicated I would for a third time. On all three occassions JL have reversed their position and eventually elected to settle each dispute prior to risking having a judgement awarded against them.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

Should JL continue to refuse to honour the guarantee they clearly advertise on their website, you may wish to escalate your issue to any of the Executive Directors who can be contacted by one of the following e-maill addresses.

sharon.white@johnlewis.co.uk - CEO
berangere.michel@johnlewis.co.uk
nikki.humphrey@johnlewis.co.uk
andrew.murphy@johnlewis.co.uk
nina.bhatia@johnlewis.co.uk
pippa.wicks@johnlewis.co.uk

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

While I agree with the sentiment, should this progress to court the claimant could be at risk of not being able to claim against JL for an unsatisfactory repair.

 

For example, while it is unlikely, should the repair not be of satisfactory quality this is unlikely to be the fault of JL.

 

This now leaves the possibility of a further dispute between OP and the repair company.

 

However if the OP insists that JL organise and pay for the repair, it may take longer, but if the repair does not go as planned this is a matter for resolution solely between JL and the repair company.

 

It also protects OPs rights outlined in the guarantee to receive a TV of equivalent specification which may be forgone if OP proceeds with a repair without the agreement of JL.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

The right to mitigate losses is being worn away by JL's negligence.

OP also has the right to have their guarantee fulfilled at little inconvenience to themselves.

 

By disregarding the guarantee JL have effectively given up their "claimed right" outlined in the guarantee to be the executive decision maker as to whether the guarantee is fulfilled by way of repair or replacement with a TV of equivalent specifications and thus disregarded their opportunity to mitigate their own costs.
 

As outlined in the guarantee the OP has the right to both options.

 

Given JL's unreasonableness it could be deemed entirely reasonable for OP to feel it is less inconvenient to purchase a new TV with equivalent specifications.

The new TV will come with a fresh set of statutory rights.

OP will be able to receive some continued albeit diminished benefit from their faulty TV until the replacement arrives.

If the replacement TV turns out to be faulty it can be returned at little cost or inconvenience.

This is in contrast to the significantly inconvenient option of arranging to have the TV repaired which involves.

Arranging for collection.

Risking paying for a repair with no guarantee of success.

Awaiting the TV to be returned.

In the meantime OP receives no benefit at all from the ownership of the faulty goods.

 

Rather than being instantly out of pocket and in the position of having to risk a claim to be restored to their original position (despite being very likely to succeed), a better option would be to locate a TV of equivalent specifications and bring a claim for that amount.

 

Should JL continue to flaunt its own guarantees then JL is unlikely to be successful if they then choose to contest the amount claimed by the OP on the grounds OP should have diminished their costs when JL had their own opportunity to do so by simply arranging for repair of the goods themselves.

 

While not the direct intention, JL may decide that it is in their interests to arrange for the repair of the faulty TV than risk a claim for what is likely to be a more expensive replacement TV.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

GoodShopper, given the two oppinions as to the nature of the fault.

 

Would you prefer to rely on that of a retailer who as you have pointed out miraculously believe the fault lies outside the scope of their advertised guarantees.

 

Or would you prefer to rely on the professional oppinion of the approved manufacturer of the TV who make no mention of screen burn or customer damage and as far as you have indicated only refer to the cause as a "panel fault".

 

When brining a claim citing faulty goods it is often deemed necessary to seek an independent professional report as to the cause of the faulty goods. In this case JL do not meet that criteria while LG most certainly do.

To be clear any claim would have to be against the guarantee as outlined on JL's website.

 

I would ask to review the copy of the report provided by the manufacturer and if they refuse explicitly ask them why. The fact they have admitted the report exists would make it likely that you would be able to obtain a copy of such a report when bringing a claim.

 

Alternatively you could arrange for your own independent report from LG and if there is a cost for this it would be included in any settlement figure as a result of JL refusing to share the report they admit to being in receipt of.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

To be clear are you saying two independent reports exist?

 

One sought by JL from an unknown repairer indicating the fault is screen burn and one sought by yourself from LG indicating the fault is a panel issue?

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

Well it sounds to me as if you already have an independent report provided by the manufacturer.

 

The fact JL refuse to share their report is unusual and you may wish to refer to this when writing to them, considering at this stage both parties are acting in good faith it would be very strange for JL to refuse to share evidence that may prevent un-necessary court action.

 

This will be confirmed if JL continue to refuse to disclose the report after sending them a letter of claim.

 

Assuming JL are in fact in receipt of a report outlining what they claim then the fact you are in receipt of a report from the manufacturer would appear to trump theirs.

 

However to be absolutely certain I would seek a second quote for repair from another independent repair shop asking them to include as much detail in the quote as to the cause of the fault. That way in the unlikely event that your report from the manufacturer is deemed less expert than the one obtained by JL you are now in receipt of multiple professional opinions re-enforcing your position.

 

I would also be grateful to confirm whether it is JL or the repair report provided to JL that indicates the repair is not possible due to the TV no longer being manufactured.

 

Why this is important is because if the repair report indicates this is the reason the TV cannot be repaired you are in receipt of very clear evidence from the manufacturer that the TV can infact be repaired and this would move to undermine the accuracy of JL's report,  decreasing the likelihood of their report to be sucessful in evidence.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

Personally I would wait until you are in receipt of the second quote from an independent repair shop that specifically details the cause of the fault.

 

Then when you send the letter of claim you can attach both reports so JL are in full realisation of the position they are about to be put it.

 

In the meantime do some basic reasearch on this site and draft a LBC, for your ease here is the address you will be writing to:

John Lewis Head Office,
171 Victoria Street,
Westminster,
London,

SW1E 5NN

 

Quote

When I spoke to the manufacturer LG i sought clarity as to whether this was the case, but was told definitively that they do make these panels and can indeed repair them.

 

This is information you will want to make very clear to JL in the LBC, as right now they will happily be led by their own report that as far as they are aware the TV cannot be repaired.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

I see you wrote "spoke to the manufacturer". You will either need a recorded copy if this was done by phone call or confirmation of this in writing.

 

A written quote for repair is likely to be sufficient as LG are unlikely to quote for work they are unable to carry out.

Edited May 8, 2021 by FruitSalad1010

[FruitSalad1010]

Ok it's good that it is documented in writing.

 

Pre-action conduct and protocol which can be found here provides under section 7 that parties should agree to a single expert opinion and share the costs of obtaining the opinion.

 

If you have documented evidence that JL refuse to share their report with you I would keep hold of that tightly as it could demonstrate JL are deliberately acting in bad faith and are not acting in compliance with said pre-action protocol.

 

Section 13 of the PAP indicates when a party is not compliant with the pre-action protocol this will be taken into account when giving directions for the management of proceedings and when making orders for costs.

 

I think what can be inferred from section 13 is that JL's current insistence not to share the report with you, despite your reasonable request, increases (while not guaranteeing) the likelihood of any claim you bring succeeding and having any claimed additional costs awarded against them.

 

As a result of this I would document any costs you have incurred when obtaining your own expert opinions, as well as how long it has taken you to obtain the additional expert opinions as it may be possible to include a small sum for this as a result of being forced to seek your own expert opinions due to JL's non-compliance with PAP.

 

I do not think you are obliged to notify JL they are in non-compliance of pre-action protocol, after all once you start sending letters they will have their expensive legal department review it, who should be more than capabable of understanding their non-compliance.

Edited May 9, 2021 by FruitSalad1010