A dishwasher installation by John Lewis caused a leak that made an elderly couple's home uninhabitable for eight months, forcing them to live in hotels with their dog. The couple is still owed £3,300 for repairs they paid for themselves after the insurer refused to cover the full cost.
Leak discovered after more than a year
The dishwasher had been leaking imperceptibly for over a year, saturating walls and floors in the kitchen, hall, and dining room. John Lewis accepted liability and passed the claim to a claims management company appointed by its insurer, effectively stepping away from responsibility.
The couple was repeatedly told that if they did not accept substandard repairs, they risked being left to pay the costs themselves. Unacceptable delays forced them to live in a series of hotel rooms with their dog for eight months, with no cooking facilities and a food allowance of £10 per day.
Repairs and compensation shortfall
Ultimately, the couple contracted and paid for repairs themselves to ensure the house was habitable. The surveyor appointed by the couple concluded that walls had been replastered by the claims firm's contractors before they were sufficiently dried, and 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 this amounted to “betterment,” and refused to refund the couple. It eventually agreed to pay half the cost, leaving a £3,300 shortfall. The couple is still owed this amount.
John Lewis's response and legal liability
Initially, John Lewis refused to comment, citing an “open legal case,” but later clarified that no legal action had been threatened or started. The claims company cited legal privilege, and the insurer said it had no records as the claims firm was acting on its behalf.
Legal advice obtained by the couple's child indicates that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the retailer remains legally responsible to the consumer even if it appoints insurers or claims firms. Gary Rycroft, a partner at Joseph A Jones Solicitors, stated: “If the claims process stalls, or is mishandled, the retailer can still be liable.”
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 for distress and inconvenience. The company has refused to budge on demands for additional compensation for the impact.
A John Lewis spokesperson said: “We apologise that the original installation did not meet our high standards on this occasion. We have worked with the customer to resolve the issues identified, and have paid very significant compensation to cover remedial works and associated personal costs.”
Positive customer service example
In contrast, Cole & Mason replaced a 24-year-old pepper mill with a new one with a lifetime guarantee at no charge after a fault developed. The customer praised the company's quality product and outstanding customer service.
