Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Explorer

-- removed duplicate reply that I cannot delete --

Highlighted
Voyager

@yannis_i wrote:

 

Interestingly, although I got the TV from Milton Keynes and I stay in London, JL mentions that they will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction. @tarbat you mentioned that JL appointed a team of solicitors based in Scotland, is that because you are based in Scotland or because they accept Scottish legal jurisdiction? 


I live in Scotland and purchased online, so I specifically asked John Lewis "Can you please confirm that you will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction in this case, so I don’t waste my time with John Lewis contesting jurisdiction when it comes to court."

 

That's why in my deadlock letter they stated "John Lewis will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction if this is how you decide to proceed".

 

Looks to me like John Lewis just did a copy/paste of the deadlock letter they sent to me and accidently left in the bit about Scottish jurisdiction.  In your case I would have though English jurisdiction would be more appropriate, but I'm not clued up on the rules in England about choice of court/jurisdiction.

 
Highlighted
Voyager

@yannis_i wrote:

I have a similar email from John Lewis, with an attached Deadlock letter, if I decide to take the case to the next step, an Omnbudsman.


Little point in going to an Ombudsman other than to prove you’ve tried everything. John Lewis will not accept any ADR outcome anyway.  My EU ODR expired yesterday as John Lewis didn’t nominate an ADR body.

Highlighted
Explorer
-- removed duplicate reply that I cannot delete --
Highlighted
Explorer

@yannis_i wrote:

 

A particularly important piece of information came to me from Citizen Advice and I do not recall seing it here, but then I couldn't read all pages so apologies if it came up and was answered. They told me that even though they will refer my case to Trading Standards, a weakness in the argument for mis-representation, is the difference between a "Statement of Intent" and a "Statement of Fact". Statement of intent means that the trader had full intention to release the feature but have failed to do so, meaning no misrepresentation was made. Again, any legal expert here that could perhaps shed light if that is the case? Is this something that can win or lose an argument even in a Small Claims Court?

 

This is useful to know. Currys definitely advertise the dongle as a statement of fact, by my interpretation of these definitions:

 

From https://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/ (emphasis mine):

 

  • "Samsung’s 2016 SUHD TVs have a built-in SmartThings hub, which is normally bought separately."
  • "Your new TV will come with the SmartThings Extend, a small USB-like dongle that plugs into your TV. Once you’ve done this, switch on your TV and connect to Wi-Fi."
  • "You need a new 2016 Samsung SUHD Smart TV, and a SmartThings Extend – a small, USB-like dongle that plugs into your TV. The Extend dongle is provided free with your new TV. "

Note that all of these claims state as fact that it happens from the first day you buy your TV, rather than stating that they intend to deliver it in the future.

Highlighted
Explorer

@yannis_i wrote:

 

A particularly important piece of information came to me from Citizen Advice and I do not recall seing it here, but then I couldn't read all pages so apologies if it came up and was answered. They told me that even though they will refer my case to Trading Standards, a weakness in the argument for mis-representation, is the difference between a "Statement of Intent" and a "Statement of Fact". Statement of intent means that the trader had full intention to release the feature but have failed to do so, meaning no misrepresentation was made. Again, any legal expert here that could perhaps shed light if that is the case? Is this something that can win or lose an argument even in a Small Claims Court?


In terms of shedding more light, this page contains useful information: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Misrepresentation.php

 

My thoughts based on that page is that the argument against Currys is one of innocent misrepresentation.

 

The available remedies to innocent misrepresentation are "rescission or damages in lieu of rescission". Rescission "is putting the parties back in their pre-contractual position." (So they take back the tv, you get back all your money.)

Highlighted
Navigator

Just to give everyone an update on my Section 75 claim.

 

Barclaycard came back with two offers:

 

1) Keep the TV, and they give me £650 cash refund. I paid £1299 so this was calculated as a 50% refund for the loss of functionality.

2) Give back the TV, and they give me about £950 cash (I forget the exact amount) pro-rated refund for usage.

 

Option 2 is the one where I think we've had some difficulities nailing down whether they can deduct for usage (with I think the main argument being we can't use the product if they havent supplied the full feature set?). I think I could probably argue for the full amount here, or at least put forward an argument and see where it went. 

 

However, I'm probably going to take option 1. I think it is a fair response, and I am happy with Barclaycard's here. I did send through quite a detailed and organised pack of information about the advertisements from John Lewis and all my correspondence with them, as well as an appendix detailing the difference between the Hub and the Extend.

 

I will try to post back soon hopefully with that document (with any of my own personal information removed) but would try to work separately with anyone who wanted a witness statement for these responses from John Lewis if it helps anyone who is taking it to court.

 

I really hope in some way Barclaycard claim this back from John Lewis (although I understand they might not). Its been a huge lesson for me to never buy anything from John Lewis again. I will use other retailers for appliances and Richer Sounds for TVs. I possibly will move this TV to a bedroom, and buy a new TV from Richer Sounds, at which point I'll definitely let them know why I'm buying from them. They've been fantastic and have put John Lewis to shame.

 

 

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Tannoy20 wrote:

Just to give everyone an update on my Section 75 claim.

 

Barclaycard came back with two offers:

 

1) Keep the TV, and they give me £650 cash refund. I paid £1299 so this was calculated as a 50% refund for the loss of functionality.

2) Give back the TV, and they give me about £950 cash (I forget the exact amount) pro-rated refund for usage.

 

Option 2 is the one where I think we've had some difficulities nailing down whether they can deduct for usage (with I think the main argument being we can't use the product if they havent supplied the full feature set?). I think I could probably argue for the full amount here, or at least put forward an argument and see where it went. 

 

However, I'm probably going to take option 1. I think it is a fair response, and I am happy with Barclaycard's here. I did send through quite a detailed and organised pack of information about the advertisements from John Lewis and all my correspondence with them, as well as an appendix detailing the difference between the Hub and the Extend.

 

I will try to post back soon hopefully with that document (with any of my own personal information removed) but would try to work separately with anyone who wanted a witness statement for these responses from John Lewis if it helps anyone who is taking it to court.

 

I really hope in some way Barclaycard claim this back from John Lewis (although I understand they might not). Its been a huge lesson for me to never buy anything from John Lewis again. I will use other retailers for appliances and Richer Sounds for TVs. I possibly will move this TV to a bedroom, and buy a new TV from Richer Sounds, at which point I'll definitely let them know why I'm buying from them. They've been fantastic and have put John Lewis to shame.

 

 


Really good news in that Barclays are excepting that there is a breach of contract even though it seems they are using faulty goods instead of misrepresentation. It is more evidence from another source that we are right. It would be great if you could post the email you used and also post your result on the ks results thread. Well done

Paul

Explorer

I sent my last mail asking for a 77% refund (£1000) and I would return the television. This is their reply.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

At this point, I can only refer you to the content of the final response email which was sent to you.  This confirms what we are prepared to offer in respect of your situation.

 

I apologise for being unable to offer further assistance.

 

 

Highlighted
Explorer

Is my next step a Section 75 as I purchased the television with Currys instore finance Creation.

Top Liked Authors