The eight-month ordeal of an elderly couple who were forced into hotels by a water leak caused by a dishwasher installed by John Lewis has sparked criticism over the retailer's handling of the incident. The couple, who cannot be named, had to endure living in hotel rooms with their dog and facing limited facilities and restricted food allowance due to the extensive damage to their kitchen, hall, and dining room.
The leak from the newly installed dishwasher went undetected for over a year, causing considerable dampness throughout the property. While John Lewis accepted liability for the initial installation fault, the subsequent claims process managed by a company appointed by their insurer proved to be a source of significant frustration for the couple. They reported being pressured to accept substandard repairs and facing repeated delays.
The couple ultimately took matters into their own hands, paying for necessary repairs themselves after an independent surveyor found that walls had not been adequately dried during the initial remedial works. A dispute then arose over the cost of a damp membrane, which the claims firm initially refused to fully cover, citing 'betterment' rather than repair as the reason. This left the couple with a £3,300 shortfall.
The couple's attempts to seek assistance from John Lewis were met with initial resistance. The retailer cited an 'open legal case' as a reason for not commenting, but this was later clarified as being unrelated to any legal action initiated by the couple. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, retailers remain legally responsible to consumers even when third-party insurers or claims firms are involved in resolving issues.
Almost three months after initial contact regarding the case, John Lewis eventually refunded the outstanding £3,300 to the couple as a 'goodwill gesture'. This sum included £2,000 previously offered for distress and inconvenience. A John Lewis spokesperson apologised for the installation not meeting their standards and confirmed they had worked to resolve the issues and paid 'very significant compensation' for remedial works and associated personal costs.