John Lewis finance gained’t aid us get lower back our misplaced £30,000 kitchen cash

We’re at our wits’ conclusion with John Lewis Finance after it grew to become down our credit card claim.

closing 12 months we paid a small unbiased business to provide and set up a kitchen for us. the overall charge under the contract changed into £29,950. We paid simply below £9,000, often on credit playing cards with John Lewis Finance. About six months later, when the installation date became coming near, we paid the identical company for the buy of kitchen home equipment â€" however under a separate contract.

regrettably, the company then comfortably disappeared, and all our makes an attempt to contact them have failed. So we took the rely up with John Lewis as our credit card company. First, personnel refused to do a chargeback, devoid of explaining why. Then they spoke of they wouldn’t refund us below section 75, because our contract (singular) changed into for greater than the £30,000 higher limit. we now have despatched them the two separate contracts, with as a whole lot suggestions as their on-line kind allowed, but they don’t seem to remember that the contracts are separate and may had been handled as such.

we've phoned them three times within the remaining month to whinge however had been instructed our case is hopeless because of the £30,000 limit, and we should still simply drop it.

This whole experience has been very distressing for us, and John Lewis’s refusal to engage at all leaves us at a loss now as to what to do subsequent. can you help?

JH, West Sussex

this is not the primary letter we have had from a reader who had had what gave the impression to be a wonderfully legitimate area seventy five declare grew to become down. The clause holds bank card suppliers collectively chargeable for providing the item or carrier bought by way of the cardboard, provided it charge at least £one hundred and beneath £30,000. consumers can claim from the cardboard issuer if the service provider collapses earlier than the contract is fulfilled, provided the charge became made without delay to the company in query. You don’t deserve to have paid the full sum to claim, simply at the least £100.

youngsters, as Guardian cash has mentioned in the past, the banks are often very reluctant to pay out such claims.

on the time of your payments, John Lewis’s credit score playing cards were supplied via HSBC â€" on account that switched to NewDay.

on account of our intervention, the financial institution has now agreed to pay your close £30,000 declare. An HSBC spokesperson said your declare had been “incorrectly assessed by our agent”. It has also apologised and sent you an additional £200 goodwill fee.

There became a very pleasing response to our contemporary request for readers’ experiences of the usage of Audi purchasers for repairs to older vehicles. probably the most reports had been shocking.

KM described taking his 10-12 months-ancient Audi Q3 for a carrier and MOT at a primary dealer.

“It failed the MOT as a result of two damaged tyres and a broken rear suspension spring. additionally, the dealer advised the substitute of brake discs, restore of an oil seal and a transmission fluid leak, and substitute of a cam belt, besides the fact that this became no longer a requirement in the vehicle’s fashioned service manual. the total estimate to be paid for the ‘required’ work became about £6,000.

“I took the automobile to a different garage, where lots of the work became deemed useless. They discovered no proof of leaks, discs had been quality, changed rear brake pads (however there changed into a lot of put on still left on them) and changed the damaged spring. the full can charge for this, together with two most reliable tyres and a repeat MOT, became £734.”

AW wrote: “My Audi A5 become in our native dealership for an annual service and its first MOT. regrettably, it failed the MOT as the ‘offside rear shock absorber has a serious fluid leak’. The helpful inspection video on the dealership client portal showed the oil trickling out. The cost of substitute became significant, chiefly as the advice is to substitute both sides on the same time.

“I rang a pal in the exchange to get a less expensive quote. He expressed massive scepticism. The dealership reluctantly launched the vehicle, announcing it wasn’t prison to power. I took it straight round to one more MOT station (no longer mentioning its recent fail) and it handed without a considerations. and six years on, there’s still no sign of a problem with the shock absorbers.”

notebook wrote: “About 10 years in the past, the driving force’s airbag warning mild on our nine-12 months-historic A4 came on. The dealership desired £250 to run a diagnosis, and suggested that discipline to that, it changed into possible an airbag failure, which might charge £2,500 to fix.

“a brief Google advised that in that mannequin, with electric powered seats, it changed into no longer uncommon for the electrical connection below the seat to work loose with time. For £25 I purchased a bona fide VAG code reader on-line, and skim the diagnostics for myself. I checked the connector, pushed it tight and reset the error code, and it become all great for the leisure of the vehicle’s existence.” Caveat emptor.