John Lewis 5 Year Warranty.

74
Posted 1st Jan
So my bargain £650 65inch UE65KS9000 model TV has a intermittant red line down the left side of the screen.
John Lewis's repairer said it needs a new screen which Samsung no longer sell so have offered to take the tv back and refund me £650.
Problem is I cant get an equivalent spec tv for the same price so have argued with JL that they need to provide me with an equivalent model as per their Ts and Cs.

"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."

Obviously im not satisfied happy with their solution but has anyone had any experience?
I said I might be happy to keep the TV and receive a contribution but not head back yet. The line is very faint and right on the side so not very noticeable.
Community Updates
Ask

Groups

Top comments
But you didn't pay £1500-£2000 for your TV.

Just take the money instead of being difficult
They're putting you in the position you were in before you bought the TV. You're not losing or gaining anything, a full refund is more than fair and more than some retailers would do in similar circumstances - some would take money off for the length of time you had use of the TV as an example.
Don’t understand. You’ve used the tv it’s gone faulty, you’ve been given option off full refund. So technically you have been using a free tv, take your money and buy one suitable for you.
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 04:31

Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of …Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of the consumer, so the "selling price value" in this instance refers to the selling price of "the nearest equivalent specification" TV, not the selling price (price paid) for the now defective TV by the consumer.


It just seems unreasonable to expect JL to replaced a '£650 'reduced to clear' TV with a £1.5-2k 'not reduced to clear' TV.
74 Comments
Offering a full refund is usually the fastest and most reasonable resolution. Fixed figure refund, or picking some TV's you'd be happy with are worth the question.
What's to say it won't happen on another set. If Samsung have stopped making the TV it can't have been very good. £650 on a TV you are looking at basic TV specs
I had an old 32 inch TV, when I became to costly to repair they gave me choice of same spec TV of cash. Original TV was about £290 ended up with about £100 less in cash as Tv's of same spec didn't cost as much.
melanieking200001/01/2020 21:57

I had an old 32 inch TV, when I became to costly to repair they gave me …I had an old 32 inch TV, when I became to costly to repair they gave me choice of same spec TV of cash. Original TV was about £290 ended up with about £100 less in cash as Tv's of same spec didn't cost as much.


yes this is the best solution for most people but mine was reduced to clear and was £1500-£2000 everywhere else when I bought it. A similar spec to my tv from my research is still around £1500 so its like going from a BMW to a ford. :(:(
dandoc201/01/2020 21:56

What's to say it won't happen on another set. If Samsung have stopped …What's to say it won't happen on another set. If Samsung have stopped making the TV it can't have been very good. £650 on a TV you are looking at basic TV specs


Yes its because its curved and they don't do them anymore:(
This is my issue £650 gets a basic spec tv nowhere near as good as mine as it was reduced to clear and was £1500-£2000 everywhere else.
Are there any other T&Cs in there that talk about reduced items and values etc.?
But you didn't pay £1500-£2000 for your TV.

Just take the money instead of being difficult
markmc99901/01/2020 22:08

Are there any other T&Cs in there that talk about reduced items and values …Are there any other T&Cs in there that talk about reduced items and values etc.?


Absolutely nothing just this:
"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."
Obviously they will be reluctant to provide an equivalent specification as its going to cost them more.
Gollywood01/01/2020 22:08

But you didn't pay £1500-£2000 for your TV.Just take the money instead of b …But you didn't pay £1500-£2000 for your TV.Just take the money instead of being difficult


Thanks for the useful comment.
If JL wont do anything then i will have to take the money but I'm looking to hear other people opinions and if they have experienced the same or similar issue.
flang01/01/2020 22:04

Yes its because its curved and they don't do them anymore:( This is my …Yes its because its curved and they don't do them anymore:( This is my issue £650 gets a basic spec tv nowhere near as good as mine as it was reduced to clear and was £1500-£2000 everywhere else.


If you got it reduced and it's gone wrong then you are a bit stuck.
You won't be getting a penny more.
I bought breakdown cover insurance for £250 on my Panasonic £699 TV and insurance compared it to lg and paid £539. That time shop owners told me lg was crap bla bla and panny was good so to receive lg was a insult. But hey, its still good and 7 years old approx
They're putting you in the position you were in before you bought the TV. You're not losing or gaining anything, a full refund is more than fair and more than some retailers would do in similar circumstances - some would take money off for the length of time you had use of the TV as an example.
How long have you had the tv for before it developed this fault?
Misslovely01/01/2020 22:33

You won't be getting a penny more.I bought breakdown cover insurance for …You won't be getting a penny more.I bought breakdown cover insurance for £250 on my Panasonic £699 TV and insurance compared it to lg and paid £539. That time shop owners told me lg was crap bla bla and panny was good so to receive lg was a insult. But hey, its still good and 7 years old approx


what, can you speak english?
I read "its selling price" being precisely what they have offered with the context of it being your tv not the replacement (the only bit that is ambiguous).

Also think my aim would be slightly different. They do not stock the S9000, they also do not stock curved tv's from what I can see. As your was EOL and a bargain this limits the choices from their best being what they have offered (effectively having written off the initial £650 and would be viewed that you had a free product for the time it lasted).

The other angle here though is the question of what could be available if you added some funds to the £650 for a replacement to upgrade in spec (i.e. as good will would they offer you a further discount on your choice of replacement).
Edited by: "Bertz99" 1st Jan
Don’t understand. You’ve used the tv it’s gone faulty, you’ve been given option off full refund. So technically you have been using a free tv, take your money and buy one suitable for you.
Bertz9901/01/2020 23:30

I read "its selling price" being precisely what they have offered with the …I read "its selling price" being precisely what they have offered with the context of it being your tv not the replacement (the only bit that is ambiguous)...


Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of the consumer, so the "selling price value" in this instance refers to the selling price of "the nearest equivalent specification" TV, not the selling price (price paid) for the now defective TV by the consumer.
unknown.02/01/2020 01:58

Don’t understand. You’ve used the tv it’s gone faulty, you’ve been given op …Don’t understand. You’ve used the tv it’s gone faulty, you’ve been given option off full refund. So technically you have been using a free tv, take your money and buy one suitable for you.


To assist your understanding: OP has an insurance contract that provides for a TV of comparable specification (or its selling price value) to the problematic TV, regardless of the original price paid for the problematic TV. The original purchase price of the problematic TV has no relevance to the insured benefit, unless there is some other core limiting factor not mentioned by OP which is unlikely as there is no core limitation mentioned by JL at johnlewis.com/cus…ees
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 04:31

Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of …Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of the consumer, so the "selling price value" in this instance refers to the selling price of "the nearest equivalent specification" TV, not the selling price (price paid) for the now defective TV by the consumer.


It just seems unreasonable to expect JL to replaced a '£650 'reduced to clear' TV with a £1.5-2k 'not reduced to clear' TV.
Oh dear, a Samsung gone wrong & irrepairable!? ...story of the brand, they sacrifice quality for cheap components way too often.
Never buy a Samsung tv imho. ..had 3 like that, walk away from the brand.
Mr_Gus02/01/2020 07:17

Oh dear, a Samsung gone wrong & irrepairable!? ...story of the brand, they …Oh dear, a Samsung gone wrong & irrepairable!? ...story of the brand, they sacrifice quality for cheap components way too often.Never buy a Samsung tv imho. ..had 3 like that, walk away from the brand.


Their fridge freezers aren't good either lol develops faults but phones are okay.
Edited by: "MR1123" 2nd Jan
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 04:31

Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of …Any ambiguity in insurance contracts is always deemed to be in favour of the consumer, so the "selling price value" in this instance refers to the selling price of "the nearest equivalent specification" TV, not the selling price (price paid) for the now defective TV by the consumer.



hmmm - I am giving the only angle of the dispute of the only thing you could consider ambiguous that I can see, although I don't think it really holds water.

No such thing as automatic it would be what is deemed reasonable and only one real way to conclude when no impasse found with no guarantee on which way the ruling would go.

The counter view is getting full monies back would effectively mean he has had a free tv and even though no EOL bargain is available that £650 baseline would now buy a better tv than the £650 baseline (not eol) would have.

The issue being there is no close replacement they stock.

N.B. he has also referred to it as warranty (aka the gurantee) and not having taken out an separate insurance policy. The means to dispute would differ if it was the "added care" insurance policy being discussed.
Edited by: "Bertz99" 2nd Jan
flang01/01/2020 22:01

yes this is the best solution for most people but mine was reduced to …yes this is the best solution for most people but mine was reduced to clear and was £1500-£2000 everywhere else when I bought it. A similar spec to my tv from my research is still around £1500 so its like going from a BMW to a ford. :(:(


Nothing wrong with Ford, More reliable than BMW's according to Reliabilty index Ford 7th, BMW all the way down in 31st lol

I know your pain though I had a 49KS6000 screen go faulty for the second time just outside of warranty

Another problem you tend to get with TV manufacturers these days is next years equivalent models tends to be inferior but cost more so in your situation they're more likely to offer a refund or partial refund even.
flang01/01/2020 22:14

Absolutely nothing just this:"If we can't repair your TV, we'll replace it …Absolutely nothing just this:"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."Obviously they will be reluctant to provide an equivalent specification as its going to cost them more.


Which is why they've offered you the latter. You win some, you lose some!
flang01/01/2020 22:04

Yes its because its curved and they don't do them anymore:( This is my …Yes its because its curved and they don't do them anymore:( This is my issue £650 gets a basic spec tv nowhere near as good as mine as it was reduced to clear and was £1500-£2000 everywhere else.



If they no longer stock curved screens then they don't have an equivalent spec TV they can give to you, so they are offering a full refund instead.
I think what JL has done is a fair "compromise" by refunding the purchase value of the tv given unavailable screen part, I will accept the refund. I can see a lot of the 65inch models from Samsung/LG being reduced already to around £700 or so ( which would have been over £1000 at some point), so would be even better value to get latest model with similar tech that's improved to your old tv.
Bertz9902/01/2020 08:29

...No such thing as automatic it would be what is deemed reasonable and …...No such thing as automatic it would be what is deemed reasonable and only one real way to conclude when no impasse found with no guarantee on which way the ruling would go....


Assuming OP can be bothered to prove the point:
"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
"
Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 2 Section 69 (1) as stated at legislation.gov.uk/ukp…ted
deeky02/01/2020 06:46

It just seems unreasonable to expect JL to replaced a '£650 'reduced to …It just seems unreasonable to expect JL to replaced a '£650 'reduced to clear' TV with a £1.5-2k 'not reduced to clear' TV.


It is more reasonable to expect the merchant to satisfy its own terms.
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 10:44

It is more reasonable to expect the merchant to satisfy its own terms.


What if they don't stock any curved TVs? Their own terms say if they can't supply equivalent spec then they refund.
deeky02/01/2020 10:47

What if they don't stock any curved TVs? Their own terms say if they can't …What if they don't stock any curved TVs? Their own terms say if they can't supply equivalent spec then they refund.


No "refund", the benefit of the arrangement is "we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value" where "selling price value" has already been identified as the value of the nearest equivalent spec TV, which OP has yet to indicate.
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 10:38

Assuming OP can be bothered to prove the point: "If a term in a consumer …Assuming OP can be bothered to prove the point: "If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 2 Section 69 (1) as stated at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69/enacted



I honestly do not think it is ambiguous when you deconstruct although it is the only plausible way the OP can be reading "it" for stance to make sense.

Have also suggested how I would, from his viewpoint, try to mediate towards some middle ground that compromises both sides and improves the offer. If formally challenging it would be a tick in the box of trying to get to a reasonable conclusion.

Question comes what is the OP really aiming for? if a new next gen tv that is not eol and costs twice as much do you think this a likely and reasonable outcome?
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 10:53

No "refund", the benefit of the arrangement is "we'll either offer you the …No "refund", the benefit of the arrangement is "we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value" where "selling price value" has already been identified as the value of the nearest equivalent spec TV, which OP has yet to indicate.


Meh
Bertz9902/01/2020 11:11

I honestly do not think it is ambiguous when you deconstruct although it …I honestly do not think it is ambiguous when you deconstruct although it is the only plausible way the OP can be reading "it" for stance to make sense. Have also suggested how I would, from his viewpoint, try to mediate towards some middle ground that compromises both sides and improves the offer. If formally challenging it would be a tick in the box of trying to get to a reasonable conclusion.Question comes what is the OP really aiming for? if a new next gen tv that is not eol and costs twice as much do you think this a likely and reasonable outcome?


Doesn't matter how any term is deconstructed if there is an interpretation in the consumer's favour, but yes: some attempt at middle ground is likely appropriate to avoid extended period of faff.
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 11:53

Doesn't matter how any term is deconstructed if there is an interpretation …Doesn't matter how any term is deconstructed if there is an interpretation in the consumer's favour, but yes: some attempt at middle ground is likely appropriate to avoid extended period of faff.


the semantics of what is and isn't clear can be clarified by deconstructing. Such as this example removing the if to known and keeping what is specified gives you this:

If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value

"its" context being "your TV"

Edited by: "Bertz99" 2nd Jan
Replacement screens for this set are still available from some authorised Samsung service partners. Prices start at €1300. Ouch.
Edited by: "captainbeaky" 2nd Jan
Bertz9902/01/2020 11:57

the semantics of what is and isn't clear can be clarified by …the semantics of what is and isn't clear can be clarified by deconstructing. Such as this example removing the if to known and keeping what is specified gives you this:If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you the nearest equivalent specification or its selling price value"its" context being "your TV"


Where OP or other rational random observer will interpret "its" as referring to the closest / immediately preceding item, which is "nearest equivalent" = suitably ambiguous to be deemed to be in consumer's favour.
Clearly what we need is the legislation that identifies definition of "different meanings"...
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 12:03

Where OP or other rational random observer will interpret "its" as …Where OP or other rational random observer will interpret "its" as referring to the closest / immediately preceding item, which is "nearest equivalent" = suitably ambiguous to be deemed to be in consumer's favour.Clearly what we need is the legislation that identifies definition of "different meanings"...


Whilst I see where the Op and you are asserting I would deconstruct it further with the or:
If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you:
i) the nearest equivalent specification
or
ii) its selling price value


where as you are constructing it as:
"If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you:
i) the nearest equivalent specification
or
ii) its selling price value of its nearest equivalent specification"

not quite as I would reasonably state it is putting it and hence limited mileage imo.
Bertz9902/01/2020 12:11

Whilst I see where the Op and you are asserting I would deconstruct it …Whilst I see where the Op and you are asserting I would deconstruct it further with the or: If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you:i) the nearest equivalent specification orii) its selling price valuewhere as you are constructing it as:"If we can't repair your TV and no equivalent product is available, we'll either offer you:i) the nearest equivalent specification orii) its selling price value of its nearest equivalent specification"not quite as I would reasonably state it is putting it and hence limited mileage imo.


Before this becomes dull: the listing of those two interpretations simply meets the requirements of "If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."
AndyRoyd02/01/2020 12:14

Before this becomes dull: the listing of those two interpretations simply …Before this becomes dull: the listing of those two interpretations simply meets the requirements of "If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."



It is already dull but what is specified explicitly in the term is clear there are one of two options made with the "or" not a juxtaposition of both. JL have offered the latter.
Edited by: "Bertz99" 2nd Jan
Bertz9902/01/2020 12:19

It is already dull but what is specified explicitly in the term is clear …It is already dull but what is specified explicitly in the term is clear there are one of two options made with the "or" not a juxtaposition of both. JL have offered the latter.


I agree to disagree in OPs favour, where disagree means the phrase likely qualifies as "differrent meanings" as defind by the Act. Your meaning is equally respected.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions