TV Stopped working 3.5 years later.. Replacement/Refund?

Percy1983

I am thinking about this now, I really can't see it being a £50 payout, as it is a repair would be fine, they may replace it, this is the DSG Group, how much does a cheap 32" LCD cost them? As for a payout, I would guess at £150 bottom end.

Going to see who else can give me the statement, all being well the price isn't a problem, but if I can't claim then the cheaper the better.

bookworm1363

Don't let the defeatists beat you down. For a money saving site, people sure like to be negative about what can and can't be done!

I personally completely disagree with the "low payout" reasoning, but I believe a lot will depend on how firm you are ready to be. For a basic rule of thumb on how much refund you could reasonably expect, work this out:

(price of TV), divide by the no of yrs/mths you would reasonably expect a TV of this type/brand/price to last, take that number and multiply it by the number of yrs/mths usage you actually did get, and substract that total from the price of the TV. Very roughly, it will give you a benchmark of what you could argue for.

So, for example:
TV = £1000
Reasonable lifespan = 10 yrs
TV fails after 2 yrs.
£1000 (tv price) / 10 (lifespan)= £ 100 per yr.
100 x 2 (actual usage) = £200
£1000 (TV price) - £200 (usage fee) = £800 refund or towards replacement.

There is no reason why you can't claim, unless the engineer says you caused the malfunction and you say yourself that you haven't done anything to it.

Therefore, what you do is get your report, send it off ot PCW, state to them that the TV is not of satisfactory quality in terms of durability considering the price paid and how long it lasted, and that they are in breach of SOGA, and that you want a remedy of either: £x refund for the TV, or credit to that amount so you can go and pick a replacement TV, + the cost of your report of course, which you want as a refund, NOT as vouchers, since that's something you had to pay for out of pocket.

Tell them that if they don't comply, you will then have no recourse but to let a Small Claims judge decide whether you have a case or not, but that you are fully confident that no reasonable person would agree that a fairly expensive pieve of equipment should fail after such a relatively short period of time and that a lawsuit will only end up costing them more as you will then also claim your fees and interest on top of the above costs.

If you stand firm and don't let yourself be bullied by them, you have a very good prospect of winning.

Percy1983

Thanks for that you have got me back on track, will get an engineers report and send a letter based on the above assuming the report says what I want it to.

I will ask the engineer how long the TV should last as a benchmark, Personally I would go for 6 years.

First off a repair or replacement would of course be fine of course.

scullster

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Don't let the defeatists beat you down. For a money saving site, people sure like to be negative about what can and can't be done!

I personally completely disagree with the "low payout" reasoning, but I believe a lot will depend on how firm you are ready to be. For a basic rule of thumb on how much refund you could reasonably expect, work this out:

(price of TV), divide by the no of yrs/mths you would reasonably expect a TV of this type/brand/price to last, take that number and multiply it by the number of yrs/mths usage you actually did get, and substract that total from the price of the TV. Very roughly, it will give you a benchmark of what you could argue for.

So, for example:
TV = £1000
Reasonable lifespan = 10 yrs
TV fails after 2 yrs.
£1000 (tv price) / 10 (lifespan)= £ 100 per yr.
100 x 2 (actual usage) = £200
£1000 (TV price) - £200 (usage fee) = £800 refund or towards replacement.

There is no reason why you can't claim, unless the engineer says you caused the malfunction and you say yourself that you haven't done anything to it.

Therefore, what you do is get your report, send it off ot PCW, state to them that the TV is not of satisfactory quality in terms of durability considering the price paid and how long it lasted, and that they are in breach of SOGA, and that you want a remedy of either: £x refund for the TV, or credit to that amount so you can go and pick a replacement TV, + the cost of your report of course, which you want as a refund, NOT as vouchers, since that's something you had to pay for out of pocket.

Tell them that if they don't comply, you will then have no recourse but to let a Small Claims judge decide whether you have a case or not, but that you are fully confident that no reasonable person would agree that a fairly expensive pieve of equipment should fail after such a relatively short period of time and that a lawsuit will only end up costing them more as you will then also claim your fees and interest on top of the above costs.

If you stand firm and don't let yourself be bullied by them, you have a very good prospect of winning.

Personally I'm not being deliberately negative, and your post contains some very good points.

My previous post simply highlights the risk / benefits associated with a claim which in turn relies on one key nugget: the perceived value of the TV as of now and what could be potentially refunded. If its considered to be high, you may consider risking the time, effort and financial outlay in pursuing it - there is a risk that a) the independent engineer won't find in your favour, and there is a risk that if he does, that the retailer will dispute. My view is that the potential refund will be on the low side and all things considered such the outlay, time and effort, and the inherent risk, I wouldn't pursue it.

I've no problem with your maths example except that you assume the depreciation to be linear which is very simplistic, and optimistic in terms of a value. Does your car depreciate linearly? If you buy a £1000 laptop, expect it to last for 6 years, could you expect to sell it for £500 after 3 years - I personally doubt it. I'd expect the value to drop off say at 30 to 40% per year, the more technically advanced the market is where the technology is constantly evolving such as computers, electronics etc..., I'd expect the annual depreciation to be higher.

Being reasonably optimistic and assuming say 25% depreciation, I'd expect a £650 TV to be worth £487, £365, £274 at the end of yrs 1, 2 and 3 respectively. At 40% though, it'd be worth £140 at the end of y3.

Percy1983

It depends how you look at why the refund is happening.

If its purely on the basis of value I full agree with the above.

But the idea of the refund is to cover the usage you should have got from it. Hence the straight line method.

Going with the £1000 Tv for 10 years, you would expect the same service from it for 10 years, hence it would mean £100 per year, so if it broke down after 3 there would still be 7 years worth of 'usage'.

If it comes to a partial refund I will just try and get as much as possible really, the closer to £300 the better.

emmasmum01

this following statement was from a snippet out of a newpaper a few weeks ago.

Shoppers with faulty goods are being routinely denied repairs or replacements because they are not told about their rights under a guarantee scheme
EU law creates a minimum period of 2yrs which a faulty product can be returned and in England and Wales it's 6YEARS!!!!

Chris Warner, consumer lawyer at Which? said. while it's true stores should repair or replace an item that breaks inside 2yrs the sale of goods act affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase.

stores are also able to profit from selling extended insurance policies.
the government's business department BERR said it is planning measures to clarify the law and will be launching a campaign to raise awareness of consumer rights
Hope this is of some help???

bookworm1363

scullster wrote: »

I've no problem with your maths example except that you assume the depreciation to be linear which is very simplistic,

I did say it was a very rough calculation. It's quite obvious that there are many variables, but at least it is a starting point.

I'd also argue the

the perceived value of the TV as of now and what could be potentially refunded.

part. Nobody could predict how much the price of TVs would drop in such a short period of time and if anything it works in the favour of the company which for refunding a relatively smaller amount can then replace the product to the customer's satisfaction. As far as I am concerned, it is what was paid at the time of purchase in relation to what other TVs cost then which will determine what would be a reasonable refund/replacement now.

scullster

Percy / Bookworm

We've got and are entitled to have (and share!) our opinions...:p

The value of the TV is subjective, it is in the OP's interest to prove it high and the retailer's to prove it low. It is crucial to the OP to satisfy himself that the value he is aiming for is realistic I'm sure we all agree.

Appreciating bookworm's calc as very rough, I've no problem with that except the depreciation assumption, and it gives you a start point but in my view its on the high side. Assuming say 10y life on a £650 purchase price, you'd be looking at approx. £420. I understand Percy's argument too that the functionality should substantially remain as is over the lifetime but coming back to my car depreciation argument, I'd expect a car to still get me to fulfill it intended duty subject to wear and tear after its proposed lifetime but the depreciation would be far from linear - I only wish cars did depreciate linearly!

My calcs using finger in the air depreciation gives a substantially lower value of £140 based on 40% depreciation/y. I'm not saying 40% is correct, but I think it is certainly closer than the linear depreciation est of £420.

Its entirely up to the OP as to the value of a potential refund (and lets not forget that he would accept a repair - I think he said that on Pg1 somewhere!), and it is this value which will have a significant bearing on whether to proceed for a partial refund.