Dishwasher Installation Disaster
A routine dishwasher installation by John Lewis turned into a year-long nightmare for an elderly couple, forcing them from their home for eight months. The appliance had been leaking imperceptibly for over a year, saturating walls and floors in the kitchen, hall, and dining room before the damp was discovered. John Lewis accepted liability but handed the claim to a claims management company appointed by its insurer, effectively stepping away from responsibility.
Eight Months in Hotels
The couple, along with their dog, were forced to live in a series of hotel rooms with no cooking facilities and a food allowance of just £10 per day. They endured unacceptable delays and were repeatedly told that if they did not accept substandard repairs, they risked being left to pay the costs themselves. Ultimately, they contracted and paid for repairs themselves to make the house habitable again.
Substandard Repairs and Disputes
The surveyor eventually appointed by the couple concluded that walls had been replastered by the claims firm's contractors before they were sufficiently dried. A damp membrane was required to prevent residual moisture from leaching back into the rooms. The claims firm confused a membrane with a damp course, argued it amounted to “betterment,” and refused to refund the couple. It eventually agreed to pay half the cost, leaving a £3,300 shortfall.
John Lewis's Initial Refusal to Comment
Initially, John Lewis refused to comment, citing an “open legal case.” It took several weeks to clarify that no legal action had been threatened or started. The claims company cited legal privilege for refusing to disclose information, and the insurer said it had no records as the claims firm was acting on its behalf.
Legal Responsibility Under Consumer Rights Act
Gary Rycroft, a partner at Joseph A Jones Solicitors, advised that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the retailer remains legally responsible to the consumer even if they appoint insurers or claims firms. “If the claims process stalls, or is mishandled, the retailer can still be liable,” he said.
Goodwill Gesture After Three Months
Almost three months after initial contact, John Lewis refunded the couple £3,300 as a “goodwill gesture.” However, this sum included £2,000 already offered to compensate for distress and inconvenience. The company has refused to budge on demands for additional compensation for the impact. A John Lewis spokesperson apologised, stating they had worked with the customer to resolve issues and paid “very significant compensation.”
Cole & Mason's Exceptional Service
In contrast, another company demonstrated outstanding customer service. JA of London reported that a 24-year-old Cole & Mason pepper mill developed a fault. After a swift exchange of emails, the company sent a replacement mill with a lifetime guarantee at no charge, highlighting a commitment to quality and service.
