Broken Philips Lcd 32 Inch Tv - Help Please

[eyeahmed]

Dear all

thank you for taking the time to read my post. I bought the above TV approximately 18 months ago. The TV has worked well but yesterday it would not switch on at all and hasn't done since. I have checked the plug and socket and even replaced the power wire but the TV still won't switch on. I have discussed this with Comet Electricals who advise that it will cost around £70 just to have someone come out and look at the machine because it is not under warranty. The guy I spoke to was sympathetic and advised me to contact philips but there was nothing else comet could do. I have not contacted philips yet but I was hoping for advice as to whether there is anything I can do about this. The TV is not in warranty and I didn't extend the warranty at the time as it was extremely expensive. Should a LCD tv which to me is fairly new breakdown like this and what can one do about it other than fork out hundreds to try and get it repaired. I would appreciate your response and advice.

thanks

[blacksheep1979]

Hi

You're covered under the sale of goods act - an item has to be fit for its purpose and should last for a reasonable period of time. Do you think an expensive TV should last only 18 months? No, and neither will a judge.

Write to the store stating that under the sale of goods act they are liable for the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty equipment and should they refuse you will seek compensation for their breech of contract through the small claims court. They may need further prodding but they won't let it go to court as they will incurr further expense and negative PR (oh and will lose).

Good Luck

[Niklowe]

Hi,

It is comets responsibilty for the repair, and therefore keep plugging away at them. The sale of goods act states that a product such as this item should last longer than it has. The problem with a lot of these stores, is that they have little or np training in consumer law. Below is the link to the sale of goods act and others that protect your rights

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buyi.../page8600.html

[eyeahmed]

nik

thanks for your posting. i actually tried to pursue comet but kept hitting a wall. i ended up having a local repairs company look at the LCD TV who advised me that the power circuit board had broken. They estimated the part at around £200. i then wrote to philips directly and after a few threats got them to supply the part for free. the repair cost me around £80.

i really wanted to pursue comet but they kept saying that their engineer had to come out and look at the tv (for a charge of £30). however i had already found out what the problem was, but they refused to accept this. when philips said they would supply the free parts i stopped writting to comet. although i would have liked to have taken them to small claims court as their a bunch of cowboys.

[patdavies]

So you have paid £80 for the repair and obtained a goodwill gesture from Philips for the part.

This, as far as being able to use the TV, is probably a result for you.

However, for Comet, it vindicates their appalling stance and thus perpetuates it for others.

ok here goes
YES you are covered under SOGA. but initially there may be charges. All repair services do have a inspection fee. if it then deemed fault from purchase then this fee will either be waived or reimbursed back.

but this is only if you go to a manufacturer or seller recognised repair service. if not you are breaching SOGA by getting outsiders to fix the issue. they will not even recognise a outsider repair service informing them of the fault. it has to be done by someone they recognise.

as the manufacturer's gurantee has passed by, the seller has to find other means of repairing the product. They can charge the £30 inspection/repair fee and then if it is proven that you have not hammered the back of the TV to break the circuit then they will either waive the fee or reimburse you.

by going to an outsider although the TV is fixed, because of this the seller can no longer inspect it to view if it fault from purchase or acidental damage. And so you are unlikely to get a re-imbursement of that £80.

my advice would have been to take up the sellers £30 offer instead of the outsiders £80 offer.
for 2 reasons
1. its £50 cheaper (or free if proved u not kick the living daylights out the TV)
2. by the sellers recognised repair service you are not breaching SOGA and so if the fault happens again in a couple months you can use this first incident as ammo for a refund or replacement

[gyzmo]

Originally Posted by retailpointofview

ok here goes
YES you are covered under SOGA. but initially there may be charges. All repair services do have a inspection fee. if it then deemed fault from purchase then this fee will either be waived or reimbursed back.

but this is only if you go to a manufacturer or seller recognised repair service. if not you are breaching SOGA by getting outsiders to fix the issue. they will not even recognise a outsider repair service informing them of the fault. it has to be done by someone they recognise.

as the manufacturer's gurantee has passed by, the seller has to find other means of repairing the product. They can charge the £30 inspection/repair fee and then if it is proven that you have not hammered the back of the TV to break the circuit then they will either waive the fee or reimburse you.

by going to an outsider although the TV is fixed, because of this the seller can no longer inspect it to view if it fault from purchase or acidental damage. And so you are unlikely to get a re-imbursement of that £80.

my advice would have been to take up the sellers £30 offer instead of the outsiders £80 offer.
for 2 reasons
1. its £50 cheaper (or free if proved u not kick the living daylights out the TV)
2. by the sellers recognised repair service you are not breaching SOGA and so if the fault happens again in a couple months you can use this first incident as ammo for a refund or replacement

I'm sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The store has the duty to rectify anything that contravenes goods legislation. There is nothing to stop a consumer from using a third party for repair and then reclaiming reasonable costs back from the seller. Obviously, it is best to give the seller the chance first. There are many legal cases where a buyer has got their goods repaired by a third party and successfully reclaimed costs.

[demon_x_slash]

Really, I just get the feeling that all this is is someone chanting the Party Line

[gyzmo]

I was beginning to think it was mass spam.

[rosiecotton]

This is undoubtedly yourbestfriend, the way he/she types is exactly the same.

[rosiecotton]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

I'm sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The store has the duty to rectify anything that contravenes goods legislation. There is nothing to stop a consumer from using a third party for repair and then reclaiming reasonable costs back from the seller. Obviously, it is best to give the seller the chance first. There are many legal cases where a buyer has got their goods repaired by a third party and successfully reclaimed costs.

Actually, I do have to say I disagree with this. I am aware of cases locally where the court has thrown out the case based on the fact that the trader was not given a reasonable opportunity to put the faults right first.

The most recent case involved some shocking plumbing work where the bathroom was badly damaged. The family lost faith with the plumber to such an extent that they failed to report the problem to him and did not give him the chance to put it right. The judge on the day accepted that the work was of very poor quality and the plumber had not acted with reasonable care and skill, but threw the case out of court because the family had not given the plumber the chance to put it right before going elsewhere.

To cover yourself, the trader must be given a reasonable opportunity. I would suggest that to cover yourself, you write a letter to the trader, keeping a copy, detailing the faults and that the goods therefore do not comply with the terms of the Sale of Goods Act. Set a reasonable date by which to complete a repair or replacement, and detail the action you will take if this is not done by the given date (i.e. taking it elsewhere for repair and claiming the cost). This can show that you have given the trader an opportunity to put it right in the first instance.

Ultimately it does come down to the judge on the day, but in my experience with district judges it is always far better to err on the side of caution and make sure you do things "properly" and reasonably.

ok and on the doing things correctly and properly

with all issues about faults etc please realise retailers are not repairmen. i have many expereinces with other retailers.

id suggest calling the telephone number on the retailers websites, receipts etc FIRST. arguing instore will get you nowhere.

Head office have the authority for refunds, etc. the local stores such as comet, currys, pcworld and argos just have the authority for a few weeks after purchase. 28days in most cases.

using the head office gives you more ammo in the future to either rectify the issue or use their statements in court.

store level staff have no training to deal with it.

a easy way of understanding a retailer in an insulting way as you seem to enjoy doing is this.

the local stores are like little 5year olds selling their toys, if it went wrong dont complain to the 5yo as he will just throw a tantrum. go to his mother (the head office).

and another thing retailers cannot refuse to contact the manufacturer on your behalf. but with data protection issues etc it will take 48 hours for manufacturer to call back.

call them yourself. the result will be the same it will be fixed by a seller recogised repairer

[gyzmo]

Firstly, (and I'm not wanting to start an argument!), I did mention that the seller should be given the chance first. With all cases, it is down to reasonableness.

Secondly, it matters not that shop staff cannot fix an item or not. It is their responsibility to have the fault corrected where required, not for them to actually physically fix it themselves.

The "authority" for refunds etc comes from Parliament in terms of statutory rights. If goods are in contravention of legislation, there is no need for the shop to contact head office or whoever. Whatever Head Office or whoever says is immaterial insofar as statutory rights are concerned.

Any insult to staff is really an insult to the company that employs them but refuse to train them properly. I am fed up of having to deal with staff (including managers) who cannot understand issues involved. Most of the time it is like banging ones head against a brick wall, and the equivalent of a maths teacher telling a kid that 2+2 is not 5, but the kid has been told otherwise.

In short, sellers have duties and responsibilities. They cannot, but attempt to many times, shirk those responsibilities. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. If sellers cannot comply with legislation, then they should not be in business in the first place. No excuses (besides statutory defences and mens rea elements!)

[rosiecotton]

I'd ignore this guy, he's been here before under a different name spouting the same sort of stuff.

[gyzmo]

Thank you, and I'd agree. I'e not actually posted on forums before, but i can instantly see the problem of people acting on what others say, without so much as an inkling as to that persons knowledge or experience, and then acting on what is said. Unfortunately, there are many people who would go to a forum like this rather than use a "legitimate" source, such as consumerdirect or CAB, and do not know better than to act on advice that is neither professional or accurate. I hav come across cases where people have eventually come for help when things get bad and have said to me "so and so on such a forum told me".

[demon_x_slash]

Yeah, thing is, if you don't respond, someone will actually believe this idiot

[gyzmo]

Lol! Just read your last post on PCWorld thread. Hard work indeed!