HELP - LG TV £1900 -Broken 16 months later.

[pateldjp]

Hello, this is my first post and hoping someone could please help!

 

I had bought a LG 50" TV in June 2006 from Currys. In Oct 2007, the plasma screen went a funny colour and the screen looks like it has a black film on it. Sounded like a fuse or something went on it.

 

I bought it for £200 on credit card and £1900 on finance ( now paid off )

 

So this £2.1k TV and it's 16 months old. It's now broken. Went to the Currys manager and he said he didn't care and that any repair would be at my cost because it's out of 12 month warranty. A joke for a item that cost so much and nearly new and now broken.

 

Can you please help as to where I stand in this matter and what I can do?

 

Many thanks,

 

Deepak

[ForestChav]

You need to prove the item was faulty when you bought it for them to do anything. A 2.1k TV should last longer than this but the law requires that if you need to use the sale of goods act if the item is >6 months old you need to prove it was faulty at time of purchase.

 

SOGA does not cover wear and tear, only those faults existing at purchase. You're entitled to a repair or replacement, depending on the economics of each and which is most convenient.

[cdb]

Have a look at my thread. I claimed against comet under SOGA (for DURABILITY, or lack of) against a plasma that died after about 26months and got a replacment. The currys manager obviously doen't know his obligations under the law.

 

You have a 6 year warranty (assuming you aren't in Scotland) for items under SOGA.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/comet/105671-letter-manager-ok.html

[gyzmo]

You dont have a 6 year warranty! The six years refers to the time limit you have to make a claim (statute of limitations). That is not the same as saying something should last for 6 years.

[cdb]

A £2100 TV should last a damn site longer than 6 years, but true, you don't expect everything to last for 6 years.

 

The way you word it, it implies to me that if say the TV bust after 4 years, you then have upto 6 years to claim against that fault? Is this correct??

The way I understood it, you have 6 years from the date of purchase to claim against any relevant faults (like when my plasma panel went) but after the 6 years you have no come back.

 

Warranty maybe the wrong word, but it sounded the best comparision to me as to how it works.

[gyzmo]

Its a common mistake - the 6 years starts from the cause of the thing giving rise to the complaint - usually when the item is bought. But it can be at a later time - it does depend (and can get a bit complicated - when one should have known, when did one actually know etc.), but generally it is from when bought. The reason for the limitation is that it is expected that it would be unfair for someone to have perpetual liability and to encourage resolution at the earliest stage possible.

 

A warranty is just really a tye of insurance and is quite different - it is a promise that an item will be fixed if it goes wrong, subject to the terms of that warranty.

 

Hope that helps!

[hagenuk]

You need to prove the item was faulty when you bought it for them to do anything. A 2.1k TV should last longer than this but the law requires that if you need to use the sale of goods act if the item is >6 months old you need to prove it was faulty at time of purchase.

 

SOGA does not cover wear and tear, only those faults existing at purchase. You're entitled to a repair or replacement, depending on the economics of each and which is most convenient.

 

This is a misunderstanding of the law and of the rights of consumers.

 

You dont have a 6 year warranty! The six years refers to the time limit you have to make a claim (statute of limitations). That is not the same as saying something should last for 6 years.

 

There is no such thing as the "statute of limitations" there is the Limitation Act 1980.

 

Its a common mistake - the 6 years starts from the cause of the thing giving rise to the complaint - usually when the item is bought. But it can be at a later time - it does depend (and can get a bit complicated - when one should have known, when did one actually know etc.), but generally it is from when bought. The reason for the limitation is that it is expected that it would be unfair for someone to have perpetual liability and to encourage resolution at the earliest stage possible.

 

A warranty is just really a tye of insurance and is quite different - it is a promise that an item will be fixed if it goes wrong, subject to the terms of that warranty.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Ok, there is a lot of confusing and conflicting advice on this thread and none of it is really helping the OP.

 

In order to pursue the manufacturer under a warranty, you are entirely bound by the terms and conditions of that warranty therefore, if the warranty expired after 12 months, as most do, this option is no longer available to you.

 

However, your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act are against the retailer as they hold the contract with you. This Act states that all goods sold must be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for all normal purposes. Your rights in this respect can last for up to six years following purchase, but will weaken over time and normal wear and tear is not covered.

 

Therefore, you can and indeed should return to Currys and ask that carry out or arrange a repair or replacement and if they refuse then you push to rescind the contract and claim a partial refund. Repairs carried out under the Sale of Goods Act must be done within a reasonable time.

[ForestChav]

This is a misunderstanding of the law and of the rights of consumers.

Show me where SoGA shows any different.

[gyzmo]

Hagenuk - sorry but I do not want to quote an entire post.

 

Firstly, the terms "statute of limitations" is just a commonly accepted phrase referring to the Limitation Act (which most people have never heard of, hence the usage of the phrase).

 

Secondly, I cannot find fault with forestchav's post - just what is it that is misleading? You state that rights last for upto 6 years. what of a toothbrush? Are you saying this should last for 6 years?

 

Thirdly, manufacturers warranties are in addition to legislative rights (which overrides any contractual agreement), and you are not always bound by them (for example - there may be unfair terms contained in the warranty).

 

I have not seen anything conflictng in the posts above. the only confusion that has arisen has been corrected by some other poster. Recission of the contract is no possible at this stage (unles there is some perversion of the law going on). Can you please enlighten us as to what this conflicting information is and where it is coming from besides yourself?

[theEnemy]

When you purchased the TV you were more than likely informed that you had a 1 year warranty. If not it will be in with your TV's documentation. When the say 1 year, they mean 12 months, and when they mean 12 months, they don't mean 16. Strange, but there you go.

 

They one year guarantee applies to nearly all electronic devices sold at retail, some may be longer some may be less.

 

At the time of purchase you were more than likely offered an extension on your warranty and since this is Currys it would also cover additional circumstances such as accidental damage. This service is offered for a reason. A £2100 TV should last 5 years but if it doesn't - well, it doesn't. But a £2100 with a 5 year warranty, you can be secure in the knowledge that if something does go wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

 

I apologise as this post is a little frank, but I really get annoyed with this type of argument. There is a reason companies like Currys offer extended warranties. It's not to rip you off, just listen to the sales advisor next time.

[cdb]

When you purchased the TV you were more than likely informed that you had a 1 year warranty. If not it will be in with your TV's documentation. When the say 1 year, they mean 12 months, and when they mean 12 months, they don't mean 16. Strange, but there you go.

 

They one year guarantee applies to nearly all electronic devices sold at retail, some may be longer some may be less.

 

At the time of purchase you were more than likely offered an extension on your warranty and since this is Currys it would also cover additional circumstances such as accidental damage. This service is offered for a reason. A £2100 TV should last 5 years but if it doesn't - well, it doesn't. But a £2100 with a 5 year warranty, you can be secure in the knowledge that if something does go wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

 

I apologise as this post is a little frank, but I really get annoyed with this type of argument. There is a reason companies like Currys offer extended warranties. It's not to rip you off, just listen to the sales advisor next time.

 

 

So that's why I sucessfully claimed against the retailer for my TV (under the Sale of Goods act) which broke after 26 months then even tho I had no warranty:rolleyes:

 

They sell extended warranties to make money as they know most will never be claimed on, so if the odd one is, they don't mind. Sales advisors tend to know very little about anything other than selling in my opinion. Sorry if that's a little frank too.

 

Which retailer do you work for?;-)

[theEnemy]

One which I have less loyalty than common sense. Business do make money out of services - that tends to be the point. But there is a point to the service. I purchase extended cover on all product I believe it may be worth it - i.e. portable products, high cost purchases.

 

My ipod warranty cost £1.99 a month on a pay-as-you-go service. I dropped it 3 months after purchase, with the headphones wrapped round it. The earbud cracked the screen on impact. I phoned up my warranty service, they asked for a few details, said that the would send out a courier box for it to be posted to them. It arrived within a couple days, I sent it back. About 5-7 days later I got it back in the post with the screen repaired. It was agreed to be fixed within 21 days, not 7-9 so I was extremely pleased with the service I received.

 

I would not sell a service to customers I didn't think was worth it. I bought it, I used it and would happily sell it to customers. I would not expect them to repair a product out of warranty, that would be like breaking a contract. I realise some people receive poor service, but that's bound to happen in a large company some times, my experience has only been good. I see many customer back in the store with vouchers because their product could not be repaired within the time frame - none of them have negative reports and are pleased to be able to pick a brand new product.

 

I cannot comment on the entire sales staff's ability - but I know a lot about the products I sell - computers are my speciality as I'm doing a Computer Science degree. If I don't know something, I'll be honest, If people ask for my opinion, I'll tell them. If sombody asks me if the one £20 more is better - the answer is usually yes - not because I'm trying to get more money out of them, but you usually get what you pay for.

 

I speak to you both as a consumer and as a member of staff.

 

(Please note - my views are not necessarily the views of the company I work for and should not be taken as such, I do not represent the company in any way other than to give my own personal opinion.)

[gyzmo]

Business do make money out of services - that tends to be the point. But there is a point to the service. I purchase extended cover on all product I believe it may be worth it - i.e. portable products, high cost purchases.

 

The only point of the service is to make the company more money. It is widely acknowledged that extended waranties in the vast majority of cases are a complete waste of money. More often than not, products are covered on other policies to a better extent than what it is with an extended waranty.

 

And there is also still the practice of stores flogging these warranties by telling people they cant get refund / repair in instances already covered by legislation. My opinion is that extended warranties should be banned from being offered at the point of sale.

[theEnemy]

I understand your point of view.

 

However, I would personally prefer the still offer them. I've had nothing but good experience from extended warranties. My opinion, of course may change with bad experience like many on here have had.

 

All I am certain of is that the cover on my aforementioned iPod was worth it as dropping is would not be covered by my standard warranty and the total warranty bill of £5.97 up to the repair definitely saved me a lot of money!

[Lula]

I think the point is, that an extended warranty is "sometimes" a good idea, especially if you have accidentally damaged something, if you damage a high end item, your household insurance will usually cover it, and it should last alot longer than 12 months, I would never buy an expensive item and expect to replace it after 12 months, which is why we have SOGA

[pateldjp]

Hey everyone!

 

Currys spoke to me on the phone saying that they will not pay for the repair/replacement of my TV.

 

The failure of the z sustain board is a common fault, and this is as stated in the engineers report. Failure due to a poor weak screen. They told me it was due to wear and tear - god, I've only had the TV 19 months before it blew.

 

So Currys are washing their hands after selling me a TV which died after 19 months! I need help! Can you please help me!

 

My no, is 07939470872 or a reply to this thread would be great.

 

How can I take my claim further!

[ForestChav]

You can't. Faults proven due to wear and tear aren't inherent when the item was bought - so not covered.

 

Unless you want to issue court proceedings in which case you may have to pay costs if you lose, and slog your report out against theirs...

[gyzmo]

But if its down to wer and tear then it comes down to what is reasonably durable. And if the report is saying that the thing is a common fault then that suggests it should not be sold at all.

[pateldjp]

Thanks gyzmo. I have 4 other people in the UK who have had the same thing happen to them. There are several cases on the internet on the z sustain board failing on these TVs.

 

The repairman cannot say it is a manufacturer fault, as the manufacturer has not sent out a memo regards this part. Like they would anyway as they would have tonnes of people claiming for the TV to be repaired.

 

What do I do next?

 

 

 

P.S. Forestchav - thanks for ur advice, but you're of no positive use to me.

[gyzmo]

Use the report against them. Simply state that an item should not fail of wear and tear after such a short time (contrary to s. 14 of Sale of Goods Act). Also provide printouts of these. Contact Consumer Direct stating you have already spoke to a manager at Currys and ask for a TSO to contact you or visit your local Trading Standards office taking in the documents and the printouts. depending on the authority, they may have a word with the store (but be aware that not many authorities do this as it is civil law which TS only provide advice on and do not as a rule get involved in).

 

If that fails, it is a case of writing to head office, including those documents stating taht wear and tear is a breach of s. 14 and that if they do not repair you will go to court. But you do need to back this up.

[gyzmo]

Oh, and I would remove your telephone number. You dont want some nut coming along and calling you (or worse - spreading your number around!)

[pateldjp]

TV fixed free of charge by Currys!!!

 

Thanks for your help everyone!

 

I STRONGLY recommend that you call Trading Standards if you have any problems with the DSG group!!!

 

:)

[Renzokuken]

TV fixed free of charge by Currys!!!

 

Thanks for your help everyone!

 

I STRONGLY recommend that you call Trading Standards if you have any problems with the DSG group!!!

 

:)

 

I'm happy to see you got this sorted, but posting comments saying that trading standards are the one stop shop if you have a problem with DSGi is misleading.

 

For example. Today I had a woman in the shop kicking and screaming because she had a 22" matsui TV that was faulty and wouldn't switch on. We explained to her that as it was outside of the 28 day period and had been open and was not of resellable quality theirfor void of our unwanted gift policy (unopened and unused before 16th of feb), it would need to be sent to matsui for repair as this was their right as a manufactorer. After going though a call to our head office, screaming and calling me a lier, and questioning my managers inability to action such a request. She left saying she was going to get her solicitor and trading standards involved.

 

Trading standards are going to tell her that legaly the manufactorer has the right to repair his product if it's more economical than replacing it. And our shop is plastered with posters stating the returns policy. So due to her stubborness, she's going to have wasted possibly weeks of her time when it could be getting repaired right now.

 

Trading standards is most certanly not always the answer.

[gyzmo]

Oh damn it - having MAJOR trouble with my comp at mo - will pst a full response on this tomorrow as it is an important issue (just spent ten mins typing it but it disappeared somewhere).

[gyzmo]

Right - fixed that. Now what was I going to say..... Ah - renzokuken's comment.

 

Two things here. First is the legislation. The EU directive required of u to implement resulted in Part 5A of SoGA - the repair / replacement (partial) refund as a remedy to a breach. Though these are additional rights to our traditional recission or damages, they are in effect replacing it, and indeed the EU wants it that way.

 

The second bit is to do with TS and the law. TS are responsible for enforcing criminal legislation, but can assist on civil legislation. I feel what DSI have doen is to deliberately interpret what TS have used as one example of a good remedy as a suitable remedy in all cases. That is NOT the fault of TS, who are having their hands tied more and more by increasingly subjective legislation and government insistence on "less is more" in terms of regulation.

 

The fault does not lie with TS here.