- This topic has 23 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yep, for sale at John Lewis. Says it has auto detergent dosing system which you top it up monthly. A 10kg to wash your laundry effortlessly. Quiet running. Remembers your most frequent choice of program. The door lights up doing the wash to bring the disco feel to your kitchen. The most energy efficient machine you can get in Europe (why Europe?) as it’s triple A rated.
To top it all off you get 5 years free parts and labour warranty.
Think I’ll have two of those…
A £1700 Samsung washing machine
Oh yeah the Dog Dagglies of what’s out there. Folks will be idiots not to buy THIS 😉
Let’s hope meanwhile that John Lewis don’t go tits up in the next 5 yrs.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
You gotta luv John Lewis customers. Its gotta be good cos its expensive, at least there polite when you complain.
Give it a few months the same machine will be in Argos for half the cost.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
It will be fun when the guys get a call that involves the machine not connecting to the network. The unbridled joy that will follow should be good.
Martin wrote:Let’s hope meanwhile that John Lewis don’t go tits up in the next 5 yrs.
Obviously a dig at me again Martin with the guy and his ISE.
What you don’t know about and don’t understand you’d be advised not to make sly digs about.
The fact is, it’s ten years worth of potential liability in a location that, if you go any further West you’re in the Irish Sea and, it’s about 50 miles from the nearest place of any consequence. So it is extremely hard to service as an area as well as potentially very costly.
Asides which, I presume that many would say that we should just put up and honour the warranty. I wonder how many of you would replace, say a fan element under warranty after even six months for a tenant say or a manufacturer warranty call if the client hadn’t paid you for doing the job in the first place.
I’d bet that not a single soul would do that for free and you’d feel perfectly justified in refusing to do so, as you would be and I’d completely agree with that.
The fact is that all warranties that are registered, if you can track them back and we can, if they are not paid for do not have to be honoured as, well, they weren’t paid for.
Part of the reason I expect that the retailer is liable under the legislation as it stands and, when you think about it from the point of the above example you could have as above, not an unreasonable way of doing things at all.
But heh, if you want to offer free warranties on work or goods you’ve not been paid for, you knock your cotton socks off. I’ll pass on that as a business proposition thanks.
K.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
kwatt wrote:Obviously a dig at me again Martin with the guy and his ISE.
Hands up on that one Ken. A curious case, an unfortunate, neigh unique, case for both parties and one I’ve never come across before. Where a dealer sells a product, he has yet to own, then sells it on to his customer who enjoys the product. Meanwhile the dealer goes into administration and then his customer shouts foul over realising his guarantee won’t be honoured AND his goods could be liable to recovery from the administrators.
It is a common problem in the motor trade. Authorised dealer sells car, customer buys, dealer goes bust and manufacturer (or HP company) demand car back.
Where I’m having a problem is trying to come to terms with is as to why should the innocence party (the customer) always be considered and end up the victim? Should not both the manufacturer and the retailer take FULL responsibility toward this state of affairs?
We all get the fact that the goods remain the property of the original owner until paid for in full. So with that fact established how then can a potential purchaser of those goods know if the ‘approved dealer’ has actually paid, in full, for the goods he or she is selling? Does not the ‘Sale of Goods Act’ allow for this in order to protect the customer?
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
Martin wrote:
twicknix wrote:
Was the review paid by JL?Huh?
Have you read the review? Who would write that? Not an ordinary customer who was stupid to part £1700?Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
But Twicky we all know that reviews are best ignored. £1700 is peanuts go for many John Lewis customers anyway. Most hubbies bow to the wishes of the missus and you can spot them at the till with that ‘whatever you say dear’ smirk on their faces.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
Martin wrote:But Twicky we all know that reviews are best ignored. £1700 is peanuts go for many John Lewis customers anyway. Most hubbies bow to the wishes of the missus and you can spot them at the till with that ‘whatever you say dear’ smirk on their faces.
Never knowingly undersold…
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
Martin wrote:It is a common problem in the motor trade. Authorised dealer sells car, customer buys, dealer goes bust and manufacturer (or HP company) demand car back.
And exactly the same applies here.
The reality is that this guy has had the machine looked at twice completely for free even although we knew the retailer was in administration and, we have no intention of reclaiming the goods.
I’d say that was a bl–dy big win for the customer.
The only caveat being, we’re not taking it on the chin for a warranty as well as losing out on two calls and the actual product.
Martin wrote:Does not the ‘Sale of Goods Act’ allow for this in order to protect the customer?
Not in the way you probably think.
The contract is not between the “manufacturer” or “brand owner” but between the retailer and their customer. If the warranty, irrespective of the terms, is a part of that contract and the contract between retailer and their supplier or the client is broken then the warranty or anything else that falls off the back of that is voided.
Without getting into details that’s about as simple as I can frame it and, it does often depend on the specifics of each case.
There are extremely good reasons that things are this way and, to be honest, before I got a kicking upside the head by Jackal and others I didn’t get it either. But, the law is extremely clever here in order to protect all involved and, in this case, there is more than one piece of legislation in play. This is often the case but, as usual, they pin all their hope on one bit of text taken out of context from a legislative act.
I can totally appreciate how it can look, it’s not pretty and I get that but, it is a much more complex situation as usual than is being made out by the punter.
His mistake and where, IMO he’s been a total muppet, is that I could have gotten him out that mess by using said legislation but now as it’s in the public domain I have no option but to tow the line 100{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} because of what he’s done. He’s shot himself in the foot and that’s most irritating as in the process of being a t0$$er he’s just stuffed himself as well as making ISE look bad in the process. And, giving me no alternative but to tow the line to the very letter of the law in case TS or anyone else looks at it in any depth.
Sometimes it pays to STFU.
K.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
twicknix wrote:
Martin wrote:
Was the review paid by JL?Huh?
Have you read the review? Who would write that? Not an ordinary customer who was stupid to part £1700?At the top the reviewer is identified as “John Lewis Product Specialist” located at Peter Jones, part of the group.
There is your answer.
😉Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
This super dooper ‘Eco-bubble’ takes an unbelievable 5 HOURS to do a 5kg 40deg Cottons wash……(see table below)…..
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
Note that these are the programs that contribute to the remarkable A+++ energy efficiency rating, presumably using virtually no water. The smug buyers will doubtless assume this rating applies across all programmes, including the high water level fast wash programmes provided for their convenience, in the mistaken belief they are doing their bit for the environment.
Re: A £1700 Samsung washing machine
robbra wrote:At the top the reviewer is identified as “John Lewis Product Specialist” located at Peter Jones, part of the group.
After the research I’ve done along with what I see every single day that is attempted to post on here, I don’t trust any single review from a consumer entry on a website.
Harsh, I know but there is usually either an agenda or, there’s an agenda.
I delete scores of them every day posted on here in the comments by people in Jakarta, the Philippines, India and so on being posted to boost John Lewis, British Gas among many, many others. There’s so many I don’t even bother to keep the emails now, I just delete them along with the spam.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a few that are genuine, legitimate actual real reviews but, at a guess, I’d reckon that 95{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} or higher were really spam in many cases. Hard evidence and research puts it around “at least” 30{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}, I’d say double it and then add some.
If you pay people to do it, that’s what’s gonna happen. With the result dictated by the incentive.
Even some “trusted” sources are open to abuse.
I think Lawrence is wanting to talk about this more in September, not sure but it is easier to explain why this happens, how it came about and all that in a conversation rather than a boring huge post.
Let’s just leave it at, what you think you see and what the truth actually is online are often poles apart.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.