PDA

View Full Version : Refused to refund?


Mdb2
12th May 2019, 09:17 AM
Hi my grandson bought a Samsung tablet off John Lewis a few days back they did not have it in stock so it arrived a few days later. Being a younster he threw the box away JL were ok with this. My grandson phoned them saying the charger sometimes doesn’t work and the games he played were laggy could he have a refund as he only had it two days JL said ok. On arrival in store a refund was refused stating they would test the tablet. At this point I was called in, and had to go to JL store. after talking on the phone twice. On arrival I was directed to the assistant manager. After a long conversation trying to get a refund which was still refused until such time as they have tried to establish the faults were right and correct. A refund was totally refused. So much for the 30 day money back laws which I have since found are different for DIGITAL products?

JL have a written policy for such events that is given to you after you have paid your monies. I think a conversation and copy of the policy should be given before purchase!

Has anyone had such problems with retailers after such a short period of ownership?

TimP
12th May 2019, 02:46 PM
I would have thought JL of all people would do the honourable thing. Maybe credit card company can help?
Saying that, I never throw away original packaging, usually only when the guarantee runs out. Not saying it’s the reason but with a box it might just have been that much easier.

Mdb2
12th May 2019, 05:06 PM
I agree, but they did say it wasn’t a problem. I was wondering if they were just taking advantage of my Grandson young age. Need less to say I will not be buying there again, shame really they have always served me well over the years. Might be a sign of the times. I had a problem with Sony about 10years back with a computer and made a vow never to buy Sony again no matter how good they might be.
Kind regards Mike

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2019, 06:52 PM
The Distance Selling Regulations (DSR) which I think you are referring to require that the Retailer gives a full refund within 14 days (not 30) for any reason, including 'remorse returns.

However, if the item was purchased form a bricks and mortar shop the DSR do not apply in the same way.

There are different rules involving the return of computer software for obvious reasons but if an item is faulty you are entitled to a repair or (at the retailer's discretion) a refund. Nevertheless, if an item is not fit for purpose the buyer (if a consumer)is entitled to a full refund if requested.

Tram
12th May 2019, 06:55 PM
If it states a refund if faulty within 30 days I cannot see how they can refuse.
I would take it further although they are not so good with customer service as they once were

I took a Samsung Galaxy 7 phone back to JL after fifteen months when it became faulty.
It was taken back for repair and after three weeks I still hadn't heard anything.
Turns out it had got lost, JL say they sent it, Samsung say they didn't receive it.
In the end I got the offer of a full refund or new phone with new 2 year warranty.
Took the phone and they gave me a 25 voucher for my troubles.

Jim Ford
12th May 2019, 09:01 PM
I had a problem with Sony about 10years back with a computer and made a vow never to buy Sony again no matter how good they might be.

I'd also never buy a Sony product, because of their refusal to recognise a fault on one of their camera models!

Jim

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2019, 09:15 PM
I'd also never buy a Sony product, because of their refusal to recognise a fault on one of their camera models!

Jim

Sony are by no means alone in doing this. Nearly all of the big manufacturers refuse to honour their obligations when design faults arise, even where safety is at stake. There have been numerous faults in motor vehicles where the manufacturers have bluntly refused to repair them or issue recall notices until forced to by media pressure or legislators.

We had a dispute with Vauxhall Motors over clutch judder, which was a well known problem on several models for a while. We were initially fobbed off until a service technician reported the clutch as faulty at the second service and recommended replacement - at a cost of more than 1,100!

The vehicle had a lifetime warranty but clutches were limited to just 18,000 miles. By the time of the second service the car had covered about 22,000 miles so Vauxhall tried to reject the warranty claim. Only the threat of court action brought a sudden change of heart.

This is what I mean about the impregnability of big business nowadays.

Tram
12th May 2019, 09:24 PM
Sony are by no means alone in doing this. Nearly all of the big manufacturers refuse to honour their obligations when design faults arise, even where safety is at stake. There have been numerous faults in motor vehicles where the manufacturers have bluntly refused to repair them or issue recall notices until forced to by media pressure or legislators.

We had a dispute with Vauxhall Motors over clutch judder, which was a well known problem on several models for a while. We were initially fobbed off until a service technician reported the clutch as faulty at the second service and recommended replacement - at a cost of more than 1,100!

The vehicle had a lifetime warranty but clutches were limited to just 18,000 miles. By the time of the second service the car had covered about 22,000 miles so Vauxhall tried to reject the warranty claim. Only the threat of court action brought a sudden change of heart.

This is what I mean about the impregnability of big business nowadays.

Nikon with the oil spattered sensors on the D600 and Canon with the detaching mirror in the 5D.
How were Olympus with the shutter shock issue?

Naughty Nigel
12th May 2019, 09:28 PM
Nikon with the oil spattered sensors on the D600 and Canon with the detaching mirror in the 5D.
How were Olympus with the shutter shock issue?

I had a battle with Olympus over problems with the plug and socket on my very expensive SRF-11 ring flash set, even though almost every other user here had exactly the same problems. Eventually I think Ian managed to persuade them to carry out a FOC repair.

Jax
12th May 2019, 10:17 PM
Whilst I can understand the OP,s frustration with this scenario I also feel some sympathy with the retailer. So many people purchase several similar items from different retailers, try each one out to determine which they prefer, then simply return the others. Argos and B&Q are a favourite with Diy'ers and tradesmen who need a tool to carry out a one-off task, purchase it, use it, then return it for a refund after the job is completed. This must result in items no longer being able to be sold as NEW and explains the thousands of Factory Recons. and "returns" available online at reduced prices.

If I understand this scenario correctly, JL did not refuse a refund but required the item to be tested to determine if it was actually faulty. Although frustrating for the purchaser, this attitude on the part of JL is not totally unreasonable. Proving how or why games were "laggy" however could be a problem but the charger fault should be easy to prove.

These problems with guarantees and returns have been created in the past by purchasers who have no conscience or morals and rip off the suppliers with no thought for the consequences. On the other hand, retailers such as B&Q and Argos make a rod for their own back by accepting non-faulty used items back for refunds.

There is no suggestion here that the Mike or his Grandson fall into this category in any way whatsoever and I hope the situation has now been amicably resolved with JL.

Jax

Naughty Nigel
13th May 2019, 07:51 AM
Argos and B&Q are a favourite with Diy'ers and tradesmen who need a tool to carry out a one-off task, purchase it, use it, then return it for a refund after the job is completed. This must result in items no longer being able to be sold as NEW and explains the thousands of Factory Recons. and "returns" available online at reduced prices.

These problems with guarantees and returns have been created in the past by purchasers who have no conscience or morals and rip off the suppliers with no thought for the consequences. On the other hand, retailers such as B&Q and Argos make a rod for their own back by accepting non-faulty used items back for refunds.

It has become a standing joke about buying a wedding suit from M&S on Friday and then returning it for a refund on Monday morning.

It is also the case that many consumers buy things from shops, perhaps because they 'must have it today', and then find the same item a few pounds cheaper online.

Retailers cannot be expected to fund this behaviour ad infinitum.

Mdb2
13th May 2019, 07:59 AM
My grandson has now accepted the faults with the tablet. JL couldn’t find the charging fault after about twenty minutes. They haven’t checked the game fault. So we are no further. My grandson has vowed not to purchase ever again from JL. I have done the same. I will be sending a stiff email to JL head office customer care section. Shame really a very large store that that was built up on quality, and customer service. I notice such companies as Wex seem to look after their customers selling off returns as open box? Will direct my grandson their way if they sell items he requires. I would think that companies are fully aware of this type of problem and build into their profit margins allowances for such problems to be resolved.

Thanks for your imputes I hope you are a little wiser as to shopping electrical goods.
Kind regards Mike

Harold Gough
13th May 2019, 05:20 PM
Re: Don't throw the box away>

Last week I had a petrol lawn mower delivered. I had purchased it as "Ex Demo" via an Ebay listing.

When I got it out of the box I found the front wheels were not parallel, the one of the right side with its rear end permanently bent backwards and inwards and jammed against the body at three of the 7 height settings.

The seller says it must have been damaged during transport. As there was no damage to the box I find that very unlikely. I photographed the damage together with scrapings and gouges across the entire surface of the wheel unlike to have come for contact with cardboard.

Today I used the box to return the mower, as agreed with the seller, and in its original orientation in the box, and await their further comment.

Harold