Broken Sony Television out of Warranty

[andyb2008]

I bought a Sony LCD TV for £1050 in April 2006. In December it developed a fault whereby the top half of the screen is much darker than the bottom half, and the whole screen flickers. I contacted Sony who said to take it to the repair centre, which I did. The repair guys wanted £710 to repair it, which I declined as I could buy a new TV for that.

I then tried to contact the people I bought the Television from, but they proved to be very unhelpful.

After that I contacted Consumer Direct who advised that under the Sale of Goods act 1979 the TV could be considered not to be of satisfactory quality and I should expect the TV to last longer than that. They advised me to write a letter to the retailer saying what was wrong with the TV, and that I wished to have the TV repaired or replaced.

I wrote a letter and received a reply as follows:

"If a sony authorised engineers report can be given that shows the TV broke down due to inherent or latent design fault which was present at the time of sale then we shall approach Sony with a view to getting the TV remedied free of charge

We are prepared to arrange free charge repair if report is forthcoming to state that this TV suffers from an inherent design fault as Sony have not recalled the product or informed us of any design faults"

Is it up to me to prove why the TV is faulty? The quote I received from the repair centre says (the poor English is there's):
"We have dismantled the unit, locate problem to suspect, the LCD screen.. We are confident this will cure the fault but are unable to confirm until parts are fitted"

If the LCD screen itself is broken then surely this isn't a wear and tear issue? Does anyone have any advise on how I should follow this up?

[gyzmo]

It burden does fall upon you. You can, however, ask how on earth you are supposed to have caused the damage. Just because there is no product recall does not mean their is no inherant fault. Product recalls are a voluntary measure to avoid the embarrasment of enforcement authorities forcing them to do it themselves, and even then it usually relates to goods that are dangerous.

If it is shown that the goods do not conform to the contract, then it is for the seller to provide the remedy. Whether they do it with Sony or elsewhere, they bear any costs involved - not you.

[wilel7]

The burden of proof lies with the purchaser after the first six months from the date of sale. If you wish to have the retailer remedy this, and they are not willing to look at it, you will require to have an independent report carried out by a repair centre to state that a fault exists and it is due to an inherent fault within the TV. If you get this report carried out then you should send another recorded delivery letter to the retailer, enclosing a copy of the report, and asking them to rectify matters. If they do not, then ultimately you are looking at small claims court.

The remedy you will probably be entitled to is repair, or costs of repair. If not repairable, then a replacement of like for like quality taking into account age and usage. Again, if this is not possible you should be able to claim a partial refund.

Hope this helps!

[gyzmo]

It's a strange animal this burden of proof. Although it is consistent with law, it is extremely difficult for the consumer.

The 6 months is a "favour" I have heard it put granted by the EU (at least one good thing from them), but what after that? With a good proportion of faults, it is difficult to imagine how the consumer could cause the damage ( For example my mobile phone tried to delete its own applications for no good reason, but how are you supposed to be able to do that?).

I think the law would be better serving to the consumer to have the 6 month reversal, and then have a semi-reversal. This would be a continuation of the 6 month reversal, though the seller can only reject if they can reasonably and evidently demonstrate there and then that they are not responsible. A bit simplistic I know, but I do wonder whether it is workable.

As for the above post, that is all fine, though I would be tempted to wait to see what they say before getting a report done. Try and argue it out with them first if they say it's non-conforming (you may convince them that you could not possibly have done it), then get a report if needed.

[ForestChav]

They're pretty much following the law here.

Yes, as the item is more than six months old you are required to prove the fault was inherent.

I'd expect that TV to last longer that that, so you're otherwise covered if you can.

But the report you have is probably insufficient so far - it merely states the faulty part - an LCD can fail due to misuse or wear, it depends on its condition and if there is any sign of either, otherwise there is possibly a design fault. Basically, the report you need has to prove that the fault was caused by poor design or workmanship as opposed to just stating it was.

If that is found to be the case then any costs borne out of handling the case are down to the retailer to recompense you for. So, other than the cost of actually repairing it, the costs of getting the report, etc etc, are all reimbursable.

[JB_]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

It's a strange animal this burden of proof. Although it is consistent with law, it is extremely difficult for the consumer.

The 6 months is a "favour" I have heard it put granted by the EU (at least one good thing from them), but what after that? With a good proportion of faults, it is difficult to imagine how the consumer could cause the damage ( For example my mobile phone tried to delete its own applications for no good reason, but how are you supposed to be able to do that?).

I think the law would be better serving to the consumer to have the 6 month reversal, and then have a semi-reversal. This would be a continuation of the 6 month reversal, though the seller can only reject if they can reasonably and evidently demonstrate there and then that they are not responsible. A bit simplistic I know, but I do wonder whether it is workable.

As for the above post, that is all fine, though I would be tempted to wait to see what they say before getting a report done. Try and argue it out with them first if they say it's non-conforming (you may convince them that you could not possibly have done it), then get a report if needed.

It's stranger than you think but that's for another mini-essay of a post

The 6 month rule is from UK legislation. More info in this post if it is any help for you. Within 6 months the consumer need only satisfy the burden of proof by making a prima facie case which is subsequently rebuttable.

In ENGLISH, this means all the consumer has to say is "it doesn't work 'cuz it's faulty". It is up to the supplier to prove otherwise (ie the fault is due to the consumer) to the civil standard of proof - "on the balance of probabilities".

From 6 months to 6 years, the consumer can still make a claim under SOGA but they have to prove the fault was inherent at time of purchase. A lot of this boils down to whether the item should still work after the length of time you have had it. The lifespan of a TV really should be more than 21 months - especially for the price you paid! It is not an unreasonable expectation.

Check under any household insurance you may have. I have come across some that will pay out the labour charge for assessments.

Best of luck. It does not sound like people are trying to wriggle out of anything, it just sounds like the parties involved are following a set procedure.

[andyb2008]

Thanks for all your help. I will get a report done and see what happens.

[gyzmo]

Thanks JB, but I am very familiar with the legislation! And I seem to have hijacked this thread so I apologise, but may continue this in that new section on campaigns.

As for the OP: I take it that you have the TV (otherwise you couldn't get a report done). Keep all documents and make sure the cause is stated in the report, as well as a statement that, in the inspectors expert (I hope!) opinion, it is non-conforming with the contract (not durable, fit for purpose whatever). Also keep receipts. Send copies to the seller along with a letter outlining SoGA (you can get templates for this if you want) andwait for a response.

Remember that if it does go to court, it will be the balance of probabilities that will decide who wins, so it will be more than likely that your report is true (more complicated but that's the jist). You should also be able to reclaim your costs as well - so keep copies of everything!

Good luck.

[mooreda]

Have you not contacted Consumer Direct again for their advice?