£1300 Hitachi LCD TV - Written Off - Please Help

[designer1]

Any help/comments on the following would be gratefully received:

 

4 years ago we purchased a Hitach LCD TV from A local dealer in my area (Andrews TV). At the time, we paid £1300 for the TV and £215 fro an additional 5 year warranty. In the 4 years of ownership, the TV has been repaired twice and is now in for the 3rd time, owing to a sound fault.

Imagine my elation, when we are informed that the TV requires 2 main boards and the cost of repair exceeds 'market value' therefore we (RETRA: Service Agreement Agents) have written the set off. They deem that you can buy an equivalent set for £600 (something i do not dispute, as TV's have come down in value) but they then minus 10% for every year the TV is old - thus £359 !

 

Upon speaking to Citizens Advice, they have advised that our Statutory Rights are still intact as every time the TV has gone wrong we have gone back to the trader - Andrews TV, who then claim the cost of repair from Retra.

CAB then advised me to write a letter, stating that they are in breach of the Sales Of Goods Act 1979 - insisting upon a repair or replacement, as the goods are not of satisfactory quality.

 

Upon mentioning this to their Customer Service Representative, they have put together a deal where they get the £359 from Retra we pay £175 and get a new TV of similar spec to that of what we had. I suggested splitting the £175 so Andrews TV pay 50% but the MD refuses apparently!

 

That said.... I dont see why I should be paying anything to rectify the situation really?

 

Ive investigated the costs involved with taking them to the Small Claims Court, which I am more than prepared to do given the principal of the matter.

 

Has anyone out there done or had a similar thing? If so what was the outcome...

 

Any advice/help would be fantastic...

 

Thanks in advance

[BankFodder]

Welcome to the extended warranty con.

 

You pay a huge amount of money for a television set which clearly was not satisfactory quality but instead of relying on your statutory rights, you paid for an extended warranty to have it repaired instead.

 

This is the con: they had a duty to repair it themselves at their own expense -- but instead they persuaded you to pay for insurance so that in effect you pay for the repairs, not them.

 

It's a good trick isn't it.

 

Search on this forum for "extended warranty" -- post by me, and you will see that I wrote about this about two years ago.

 

There are two possible actions here. One is on the basis of the sale of goods act in that the television has to be of satisfactory quality.

 

The other one might be on the basis of the extended warranty in that they should be paying for more than they are offering.

 

I'm a bit worried about the sale of goods act here, because although it is clear that the television was not a satisfactory quality, this was some time ago. You are now dealing with a television set at least four years old and the question is whether the circuit boards which have failed had in fact come to the end of their natural life.

 

Even if a court says that they should have lasted longer and that the set is not satisfactory standards, how much will the court for you? The court will not offer you a new set. The court will take into consideration that you have had for years use out of the set and is likely only to give you a portion of today's value of a new set.

 

To understand the extended warranty route, I would have to know the terms and conditions of the extended warranty. However I'm quite sure that the warranty talks about natural wear and tear etc -- and its terms are probably arranged in a way that allows the providers of the policy to deduct the value of your four years use from the replacement value that they would offer you.

 

If a television now costs about £600, and you have used up four years, then you have to ask yourself how long would a reasonably satisfactory television set actually last. I expect to 8 years is right at the limit of the cycle it is more likely to be six years. This means that you have enjoyed two thirds of the value of the money that you first spent. They have offered you £359. This means that you lose £250 of the present value of a new set. This means that you have negotiated a deal where they assume that you have only used the set for 2 1/2 years.

 

I think you are doing very well. I don't think you can expect to do better.

 

I think the real bloody nose that you have taken is the waste of money on the extended warranty. But you will never get that back.