Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Pathfinder

Depends. If they offered it 'without prejudice' then it can't be used as an admission of them being in the wrong.

 

However they are very much in the wrong so the case is a slam-dunk even without that.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Moily wrote:

Depends. If they offered it 'without prejudice' then it can't be used as an admission of them being in the wrong.

 

However they are very much in the wrong so the case is a slam-dunk even without that.


I have not seen the "without prejudice " on any of the replies from them,  and you can not get away with that if you are infact breaking the law. It is now so clear that they have made a big mistake by offering compensation because you do not do that if you do not think you are in the wrong. They would have been better denying are wrong doing,  but they have and we have it recorded by the people here in black and white. 

Paul

Highlighted
Explorer

@paul1277 wrote:

@Moily wrote:

Depends. If they offered it 'without prejudice' then it can't be used as an admission of them being in the wrong.

 

However they are very much in the wrong so the case is a slam-dunk even without that.


I have not seen the "without prejudice " on any of the replies from them,  and you can not get away with that if you are infact breaking the law. It is now so clear that they have made a big mistake by offering compensation because you do not do that if you do not think you are in the wrong. They would have been better denying are wrong doing,  but they have and we have it recorded by the people here in black and white. 

Paul


You cannot use any correspondence sent 'Without Prejudice' in a court hearing or evidentiary filing.

 

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3a52bd62-ce7e-471d-8802-89e0fe69a439

Highlighted
Pathfinder

and the absence of 'without prejudice' on an offer isn't necessarily an admission of culpability either. It could be a gesture of goodwill towards a customer even if they disagree with their grievance.

 

By all means include it in a claim (if there's no 'without prejudice' statement) but the main focus should be the fact that they have mis-sold the item in the first place and have contravened the Consumer Regs in not offering full refund or suitable replacement.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Moily wrote:

and the absence of 'without prejudice' on an offer isn't necessarily an admission of culpability either. It could be a gesture of goodwill towards a customer even if they disagree with their grievance.

 

By all means include it in a claim (if there's no 'without prejudice' statement) but the main focus should be the fact that they have mis-sold the item in the first place and have contravened the Consumer Regs in not offering full refund or suitable replacement.


Had an interesting private discussion with tell and the retailers could argue that the offer is reasonable compensation for a faulty tv. That is why we have to be absolutely clear that the issue is misrepresentation as defined in the Oct 2015 European consumer regs. 

Paul

Highlighted
Explorer

13/07/18

________________________

 

Thank you for your reply. As advised in previous correspondence, we feel the explanation offered is fair and will not be offering an alternative outcome. I regret we were not able to resolve this issue to your satisfaction.

Thank you for contacting John Lewis.

_________________________

 

Is this the dreaded deadlock?

Highlighted
Helping Hand

 


@paul1277 wrote:


Had an interesting private discussion with tell and the retailers could argue that the offer is reasonable compensation for a faulty tv. That is why we have to be absolutely clear that the issue is misrepresentation as defined in the Oct 2015 European consumer regs. 

Paul


With "tell"? Who is that.

 

I agree, for faults, the offers are reasonable , even generous in some cases for a TV completely out of waranty.

 

And yes it's the misrepresentation thing that they are deliberately not getting. As in the case of the JL response above. "I regret that we were" - WERE, past tense, as if that statement closes the issue. The sheer arrogance of these people!

 

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@mrtickle wrote:

 


@paul1277 wrote:


Had an interesting private discussion with tell and the retailers could argue that the offer is reasonable compensation for a faulty tv. That is why we have to be absolutely clear that the issue is misrepresentation as defined in the Oct 2015 European consumer regs. 

Paul


With "tell"? Who is that.

 

I agree, for faults, the offers are reasonable , even generous in some cases for a TV completely out of waranty.

 

And yes it's the misrepresentation thing that they are deliberately not getting. As in the case of the JL response above. "I regret that we were" - WERE, past tense, as if that statement closes the issue. The sheer arrogance of these people!

 


He is @Tell who had a private conversation but does not want it on the forum for some reason.

I agree for faults but not misrepresentation so be really clear about this.

 

Highlighted
Explorer
I have responded to John Lewis one last time to give them an option to reconsider.

_______________________________________

I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to look over the facts once more as John Lewis are on the wrong side of the law.

In summary:

- John Lewis has admitted that the television had been advertised to come with the USB SmartThings Dongle (this is a physical item - separate from the software) at the time of purchase.
- John Lewis will not provide the USB SmartThings Dongle that had been advertised to me, the customer.
- The television is not faulty or unfit for purpose. It is missing the USB SmartThings Dongle which was clearly advertised, and acknowledged to be advertised to be included with the television.
- This is a clear breach of the "As Described" clause of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I await your reconsideration. If your stance is still unchanged after 14 days, I will be filing a small claims court case against John Lewis.
_________________________________

If it's not resolved, then I WILL be taking them to the small claims court.
Highlighted
Black Belt 
Would be useful if people can let others know of us here on this apt thread,
https://community.smartthings.com/t/samsung-reveals-entire-2016-smart-tv-line-up-will-be-iot-ready/3...

I have posted but more the merrier,
Paul
Top Liked Authors