Samsuns TV broken within warranty, want replacement!

Poppy9

savemoney wrote: »

The problem arises after 12 months usually as most appliances have a 12 month guarantee which is not law just a guarantee by the manufacturer which the shop normally adheres too. Its then up to the individual to prove that the goods have an inherent fault

There is no doubt it will require more effort and action by the purchaser to hold the retailer responsible but if you have paid a few hundred or a thousand pound for an item and it's going to cost you as much to replace it maybe worth suing in the small claims court. Your local Trading Standards should be able to provide you will help &/or advice in how you take the matter forward.

The guardian ran an article on this a couple of years ago and included a mention of a mediation service. Not sure if that scheme rolled out though.

SFA_AOK

Thanks for the replies. I've tried Samsung and Dixons but looks like it's going to have to go in for repair Apparently the repair centre offer TVs on loan - they didn't mention this last time funnily enough!

Re: the timings: I picked up the TV from the repair centre on Saturday, after it had been there 2.5 weeks. We couldn't take the TV to the repair centre straight after we called Samsung initially, and when the fault first developed we thought it best to give it a week or two to see if it got better/worse. So all in all, from first noticing fault to getting it back was probably about 1.5 months in all, maybe a little more. Hope that "adds up" for you...

Leo2020

One thing to point out is that Dixons have a policy on repair times. If the repair takes over 28 days then you can request a replacement*. They won't offer it to you automatically but if you ask for it they will arrange it.

* They will count the time from when you took it to the repair centre not when you first reported the fault because it was you who choose to wait to take it in.

moonrakerz

Poppy9 wrote: »

I don't feel I did make a misleading statement. I said As I said you still have "rights" under SOGA.

Perhaps what I said didn't come across in the way I intended.

Your statement tends to lead people to think that they have longer than the usual 12 month guarantee on any item:
"Even after the TV is 12 months old you have rights under SOGA which doesn't specify a 12 month period anywhere. It only mentions reasonable time."

As it stands this is 100% correct - but........... the trouble is then that people read that and then Google for SOGA, rapidly cast their eyes over what is there - see 6 years and they are off to Currys like a shot with their dead 5 year old cheapo TV "informing" the Manager that SOGA says that he must repair/replace it for up to 6 years !

This "knowledge" then gets spread - it appears on this site more times that I've had a hot meal !

To be totally honest, you are very much reliant on goodwill from the retailer once your guarantee has expired - unless you can find some evidence that the item does indeed have a somewhat chequered history - and the internet is a Godsend for this, but regrettably this doesn't happen that often.

MSE is meant to be a "money saving" site - unfortunately many of the posts are asking where the "cheapest" can be obtained - the two do not equate, unless you are buying cans of Heinz baked beans. People tend to think that SOGA "protects" them for 6 years, therefore the cheapest is best - NOT SO !

Earlier this year I bought a new TV. It cost me £800, I could have got it from another place (High Street store) for £150 less - for £169 they would extend the warranty to 3 years. I note in this Sunday's paper the same retailer now offers "product care" for £7.99 a month - an extra £485 over 5 years - if it goes that far ! Money saving ??
One other internet site was offering it at £600 with 1 year warranty. I found numerous posts on various fora stating that they had paid £600 for it, and what a great price it was. I wondered what the response would be from this dealer when they went back in three years and said "my TV is dead (even Panasonics die !) and you have to repair it for 6 years".
I paid £200 more, but I got a 5 year warranty from probably the most respected retailer in the land.

I did have "discussion" about SOGA on this site a while back and I did put up a load of posts where people were claiming, incorrectly, that SOGA gave, in effect, a 6 year warranty.

Hope that clarifies my point............

SFA_AOK

Interesting discussion, I know I didn't specifically ask in my initial post but it's actually been a very useful discussion so thanks The following is me thinking out loud rather than any specific details of my case (long story short - I'll have to take it back again).

So how does the "wasn't fit for purpose when sold" work - if it hasn't lasted a "reasonable" amount of time (who decides this?), I take it from what's been said that's not enough to show it wasn't fit for purpose when sold? And how could you otherwise prove it wasn't fit for purpose when sold?

Seems harsh that just because you bought something from somewhere cheaper (but still a legit retailer) means the rules don't apply as strongly... It's not necessarily that they're being sold cheaper because they won't last as long, and (in this example) that probably can't be known at time of purchase; in fact, if people were aware of this, they may purchase elsewhere.

Obviously if your got something at a suspiciously cheap price, then I could see that a "reasonable" person may think that as you paid a lot lot less, it wouldn't last as long...

Poppy9

You should speak to Trading Standards about how you take the matter forward if the item is still not in working condition or breaks down again. You may have to pay for an engineers report to detail what is wrong with it or you it maybe sufficient to have details of the previous repairs. They are best placed to advise you.

My brother bypassed Trading Standards when his £1000 telly didn't work after being repaired twice in the previous 18 months. He has his own business and retains a solicitor so he simply got his solicitor to fire off a letter to the company advising them he would sue them etc. and they took the TV back and gave him a full refund. His solicitor had told him that legally he wasn't entitled to a full refund as he's had some enjoyment of the product but I don't think they wanted to get into a legal battle. It cost my brother the price of his solicitor writing a letter. This was about 4 years ago.

If you buy a TV 1/2 price in Argos while John Lewis are selling it for the "normal" price doesn't mean you have less rights because you have paid 1/2 the normal price. For sale items sold as new you retain the same rights. If however you bought a TV that was a "manager's special" due to it having been refurbished, repaired, cosmetic damage etc. then you are accepting you have bought substandard goods and it may not be reasonable, depending on the fault described at time of sale, to expect the item to be as durable as a full price, sold as brand new item.

p.s. Just for interest. If you buy something from a Warehouse like Makro then SOGA doesn't apply as a warehouse is for business customers and you then have to rely on ordinary contract law.

moonrakerz

SFA_AOK wrote: »

So how does the "wasn't fit for purpose when sold" work - if it hasn't lasted a "reasonable" amount of time (who decides this?), I take it from what's been said that's not enough to show it wasn't fit for purpose when sold? And how could you otherwise prove it wasn't fit for purpose when sold?

You have highlighted the main failing of SOGA. This Act (to me, anyway) is a classic case of a piece of legislation that means well but actually causes more confusion this it clears up.
"Fit for purpose" is an expression that has become the "in" phrase of late - but it means whatever the user wants it to mean, there is no hard and fast meaning. The Home Office was described as "not fit for purpose" - rubbish ! 90% of it was working just fine, 10% was a shambles. It was just a good soundbite.

An example I have used before.

You want to buy a garden fork. There is one at £20 with a nice hickory handle, there is one for £5 with a cardboard tube for a handle.
The £5 one will probably be adequate for light digging of your flower beds, but wouldn't (?) cope with clearing an overgrown allotment. The hickory handled one will cope fine with the allotment, but while you are doing that you come across a piece of masonry which you try to lever out with the fork. To late you realise you have discovered a missing piece of Stonehenge and the handle breaks.
Which of these was "fit for purpose" ? if any. What exactly was the purpose ?
To protect yourself you should hold a detailed discussion with the shop and satisfy yourself that the fork you intend to buy will cope with your flower bed, allotment or Stonehenge - then when it breaks you will have a reasonable claim against the retailer.
The problem is, that even if there is anyone around to ask, they probably don't know the the difference between a fork and a spade anyway !
AND..... far too many people think the £5 fork will deal with Stonehenge.

Poppy makes a good point "If you buy a TV 1/2 price in Argos while John Lewis are selling it for the "normal" price doesn't mean you have less rights because you have paid 1/2 the normal price". True, but whilst buying a £1000 TV against a £300 one (not the same model !) does not affect your rights- what effect does this have on your expectations of its performance and what effect might it have on the outcome of any dispute with the retailer if it does go wrong ?

Discuss !

Poppy9

moonrakerz wrote: »

True, but whilst buying a £1000 TV against a £300 one (not the same model !) does not affect your rights- what effect does this have on your expectations of its performance and what effect might it have on the outcome of any dispute with the retailer if it does go wrong ?

Discuss !

Covered in my previous post

Poppy9 wrote: »

.............. How you judge reasonable will be in relation to the price paid and the product. If you pay £5 for an electric kettle then 12 months might be reasonable but if you pay £40 you would think you are buying better quality so 12 months is not reasonable.

moonrakerz

Poppy9 wrote: »

Covered in my previous post

"If you pay £5 for an electric kettle then 12 months might be reasonable but if you pay £40 you would think you are buying better quality so 12 months is not reasonable."

That was exactly my point, ARE you getting better quality for your extra £35 ? It totally depends on what YOU are after and the trouble is, people, in many cases, don't know what they are after. That £5 kettle could well have exactly the same functioning parts as the £40 one, the price difference covering a higher profit margin, the stainless steel body and the picture of Mickey Mouse on the side for which they have had to pay Disney a huge licence fee.

Is a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes better quality that a reasonably priced pair from an high street shoe shop ? Or is all that extra money just for the label and the "style" ?

No one would put Toyota and Mercedes in the same price range, but looking at JD Power reports a Mercedes is a much worse buy, reliabilty wise, than a Toyota. 3 stars against 5. But in that case perhaps you are right - the more expensive item should have the longer warranty because it is **** - not because it costs more.
But with Jaguar and SAAB, in the same price bracket, Jag has 5 stars, SAAB has 2. Should these both have the same length warranty ?

When it comes to electronics, to be totally honest, there should be little difference in how long a £4000 TV will last compared to a £300 own brand. The electronics in the expensive one will probably give a better picture and sound than the cheap one because it employs better/more sophisticated/modern technology - BUT you could make a equally good case that the more complex item will not last as long as the simpler and cheaper one!

As I have said, pay a bit more and get a decent, longer warranty from a reputable retailer, don't blindly rely on the supposed merits of SOGA.

Tozer

Poppy9 wrote: »

p.s. Just for interest. If you buy something from a Warehouse like Makro then SOGA doesn't apply as a warehouse is for business customers and you then have to rely on ordinary contract law.

Not strictly correct as it depends on the circumstances (i.e. whether you are buying as a consumer or not).

See my comments in respect of the Makro thread.