[SSGGeezer]

No point and shoot is equivalent to a K-50, no matter the price they are sold for. That is like saying a store mushroom is a black truffle.

[roberrl]

Just for my understanding - you say it wasn't a display model but surely the K50 had been replaced by January 2017 (the review of the KS-2 is dated August 2015 here and the KS-1 January 2015) and to quote " but it was bought perfect in the box its had low usage and been cared for very well!" which sounds to me like it had been on the shelf for a while, if not been on display and then put back when the K-S2 came out.

So this sounds like the JL warranty applies, Pentax would probably say it's JL's problem. So we come back to the issue that its' value to you is £600 but JL are looking at repair costs near to their £300 refund cost. From their point of view a refund is safest if not necessarily what you want

[pschlute]

Ha! No - just trying for a little more than - 'we will keep the camera and give you the lower price


Honestly it puts me off buying discounted cameras if its going to be really hard to get the RRP of that time if it gets a fault...

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 07:26 PM ----------




Yes that makes sense - I just didn't want to walk in there all cavalier demanding a camera that is much better - anyway as they have stopped doing Pentax it sort of puts a spanner in the work in terms of actual 'equivalent'

Well sense requires fairness to both parties. If they are offering to put you in the same position you were before you bought the camera by offering your money back what is wrong with that? You have had almost two years use from a camera for nothing.

[stevebrot]

Assuming the camera was purchased as "new", not as used-demo or used-refurbished, the original Pentax EU 2-year warranty would still be in effect and would be your best option. If not, then the offer of a refund would be quite reasonable.


Steve

[c.a.m]

If they are offering to put you in the same position you were before you bought the camera by offering your money back what is wrong with that? You have had almost two years use from a camera for nothing.

I am tending to agree with this view. Surely, the guarantee is intended to cover only the financial aspects of the transaction. Although the OP is probably disappointed in the situation, the refund of the original purchase price -- after almost two years of use -- would cover John Lewis' full financial liability as well as the OP's original cost. Anything beyond that would be 'goodwill' on the part of the retailer, which is not a clear requirement or expectation in this case.

[BigMackCam]

Honestly, I think for them to offer you every penny of what you paid for the camera - especially considering you've had full use of it between the date of purchase and the fault occurring - is pretty darned honourable by any warranty standards. They're making full financial restitution, and that's the best you can ask of any warranty or supplier. You've effectively had a "rent free" K-50 all this time. We should all be so fortunate

I would take the refund, be happy that you got a great deal and treatment from the supplier, and put it towards your next camera - even if that means you have to save for a little while.

[pschlute]

There was a case like this on a uk consumer program a year or so ago. A couple bought a top range washing machine with a retail price of over £1000 for £300 in a sale.
The machine developed problems and under the manufacturers warranty was repaired a number of times. The manufacturers then declared the machine unrepairable and told the owners to ask the retailer for a replacement or their money back
The retailers no longer stocked the model and offered the consumers their £300 back. They were unhappy and wanted a new machine. I think they settled somewhere in the middle but I think this sets a poor precedent. To expect a retailer to have a liability in excess of the sales price is just daft.

[chutzpah]

I think the cost to fix is likely close to the price I paid ( if its what I think it is) - but, and no one seems to see or agree with this, JL chose to reduce the price of the camera to shift it quickly at potential loss, if I had paid £600 for it the cost would nowhere near and consequently they wouldn't be able to quibble over fixing it - that's my point, its all well and good to say, you had a rent free camera for 2 years! im not saying the cash offer is a totally inappropriate one - im saying I will be left without a camera because they wont fix a fault that would cost less than the RRP because they chose to reduce it to shift it.


So im left without a camera as a result, which isn't leaving me in the same whole situation as I was in originally, it just puts me back where I was financially. JL didn't have to reduce it, I had already decided to get that one anyway!


Ultimately I think I would prefer to be where I was before as in having a camera, rather than having the cash - and a fix if its aperture isn't an unreasonable request I think. Honestly ide rather not have to deal with people making value judgements on if my preference is reasonable or not - it is my preference, and its not outlandish, I was just asking about warranty and repairs knowledge...


and its things like that that people may think are small petty quibbles that case law is made on ( though I admit I know nothing much on retail law)

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 09:08 PM ----------

anyway I shall report back when I hear from Pentax and JL as it may help someone in a similar situation in the future.

[BigMackCam]

I think the cost to fix is likely close to the price I paid ( if its what I think it is) - but, and no one seems to see or agree with this, JL chose to reduce the price of the camera to shift it quickly at potential loss, if I had paid £600 for it the cost would nowhere near and consequently they wouldn't be able to quibble over fixing it - that's my point, its all well and good to say, you had a rent free camera for 2 years! im not saying the cash offer is a totally inappropriate one - im saying I will be left without a camera because they wont fix a fault that would cost less than the RRP because they chose to reduce it to shift it.


So im left without a camera as a result, which isn't leaving me in the same whole situation as I was in originally, it just puts me back where I was financially. JL didn't have to reduce it, I had already decided to get that one anyway!

Putting you back to where you were financially is the situation you were in originally before your transaction with the seller, isn't it?

If you were to make a legal issue of this (and I realise that's not your intention), no judge would rule in favour of putting you in a better situation than you were before you bought the product.

It's JL's right to decide whether they prefer to fix, replace or refund (that's VERY common in warranties). Refunding you is clearly the cheapest and easiest option for them whilst fulfilling JL's contractual obligations with you, and it puts you right back in the position you were in before you bought the camera, which - as you rightly acknowledge - you've had two years' use out of.

I'm not criticising you, but trying to paint how this appears to me as an outsider. Before you bought the camera, you had £X in your bank account. You paid £X for the camera and used it for two years. Now it has developed a major fault. JL has the right to decide whether to repair, replace or refund, regardless of whether-or-not you think the repair can be done cheaply (and you may well be correct - but for whatever reason, JL disagrees or feels it would rather not go through the operational trouble). It has chosen to exercise its option to fully refund you and put you right back where you were before your purchase. You're getting back everything you had before you bought the camera, but as a bonus, you had two years' use out of it. That seems to me like an awesome deal

A court of law in the UK, when engaged in this sort of case, would only approve restitution that puts you back to where you were when you started - not in a better position. Whether you think JL's appraisal of the repair costs is inaccurate or not wouldn't matter in the slightest. A judge would consider JL to be doing the right thing by giving you every penny of your money back And, with respect, that's what I think too...

EDIT: I bought my last 2-in-1 tablet from John Lewis for precisely this sort of *excellent* warranty service, coupled with a sale price that matched the lowest available anywhere else...

[chutzpah]

Because from what ive seen so far in the advice fixing an aperture fault would actually be less that the cost I paid - the reduced one, JL no longer do Pentax, they impression I got when I brought it in was that I was really putting the person out as ' we don't really deal with Pentax anymore' make of that what you will but I got the impression that if it had been a Brand they still carry this wouldn't have been the only option given to me... I worked in retail and I know when someone wants to sign off on something asap without making abit of effort, I was surprised as its JL, and yes i get that full cash refund is nothing to be sniffed at under many circumstances...


Anyway, when Pentax give me a quote and I get confirmation of the fault from JL i will know if i should just take the money and run or see if i can push for a repair - im low waged, losing my camera when im in the middle of a Course and need it and cant afford to run out and get an equivalent is a bigger deal to me than it may be to others

[BigMackCam]

Because from what ive seen so far in the advice fixing an aperture fault would actually be less that the cost I paid - the reduced one, JL no longer do Pentax, they impression I got when I brought it in was that I was really putting the person out as ' we don't really deal with Pentax anymore' make of that what you will but I got the impression that if it had been a Brand they still carry this wouldn't have been the only option given to me... I worked in retail and I know when someone wants to sign off on something asap without making abit of effort, I was surprised as its JL, and yes i get that full cash refund is nothing to be sniffed at under many circumstances...


Anyway, when Pentax give me a quote and I get confirmation of the fault from JL i will know if i should just take the money and run or see if i can push for a repair - im low waged, losing my camera when im in the middle of a Course and need it and cant afford to run out and get an equivalent is a bigger deal to me than it may be to others

I completely understand your situation, but I truly believe JL is being completely honourable in offering the full refund. No disrespect, but they don't care about your financial situation and commitments - JL's a huge retail business, as you know. So the full refund you've been offered is a huge win on your part.

If I were you, I'd grab the refund and run. You can buy a lightly used, fully working flagship model K-5 or K-5II in the same excellent cosmetic condition as your faulty K-50 for less money

[BigMackCam]

^^^ EDIT 2:

I recently bought what to me was an expensive new custom-specification laptop to replace my ageing HP that I've had for nearly six years, and on which the screen is almost falling off despite several repairs I've done myself to extend its life. I paid extra to have the machine built and delivered somewhat faster than this reputable company's usual timescale.

The new laptop had a fault when I received it (flickering screen). I sent it back. After some days, I received the supposedly repaired laptop, and it had a different fault (bezel around the replaced screen badly fitted). I'm now three weeks in, by the way. I sent it back and asked for a refund as I wasn't satisfied with the purchase experience. After considerable back-and-forth e-mail discussion with the company's reps, I got a full refund. The whole process took about a month from my original order, after which I was able to order a different new laptop - from HP, at twice the cost - with a three week delivery timescale, and that should be delivered shortly (in the mean-time, I'm making do with the "broken" HP I've been using for almost six years). The inconvenience, however, is mine to deal with - not the original supplier's.

FWIW, I don't have money to burn either (I'm only occasionally on any income at all - by choice - and living off savings from the last 32 years), and I can't be without a working laptop. I'm very happy I got my refund, which was the correct outcome, and gets me back to where I was before I bought that PC. I'm dealing with the rest of the solution myself

[stevebrot]

If I were you, I'd grab the refund and run.

Camera is still under Pentax 2-year warranty (assuming the UK gets the same terms as the continent).

anyway I shall report back when I hear from Pentax and JL as it may help someone in a similar situation in the future.

Pentax should honor the warranty unless they find evidence of mistreatment.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Pentax should honor the warranty unless they find evidence of mistreatment.

I think the point here, Steve, is that the camera is outside of Pentax warranty, but covered instead by the supplier's own warranty. I may be mistaken, but I believe that's the case given the length of time the OP has owned the camera...

[stevebrot]

I think the point here, Steve, is that the camera is outside of Pentax warranty, but covered instead by the supplier's own warranty. I may be mistaken, but I believe that's the case given the length of time the OP has owned the camera...

Does Pentax not offer a 2-year warranty for the UK? The camera was purchased January 2017.


Steve