Are Tesco's trying it on with me ???

SAGWALA_3

dmg24 wrote: »

You cannot compare a Sony TV and a Tesco own brand TV! The usage time is irrelevant, you have had the tv for twenty months. Without knowing which method of depreciation they have used, I would say that they have used a time of four or five years for the tv's expected useful life, and IMO this is a fair time.

You may feel that your rights should go further, but they do not.

I cannot agree with that. Durability is based on the specific item, not the brand.

If you choose to pay £350 for a 19" Sony TV and I choose to pay £139 for a XYZ TV, there is nothing to state that the TV that cost more money should last longer.

In fact in my experience, more expensive items are just as likely to display faults or break down, as much as a cheaper alternative.

I think your comments on brand are irrelevant to durability and consumer rights.

dmg24

SAGWALA wrote: »

I cannot agree with that. Durability is based on the specific item, not the brand.

If you choose to pay £350 for a 19" Sony TV and I choose to pay £139 for a XYZ TV, there is nothing to state that the TV that cost more money should last longer.

In fact in my experience, more expensive items are just as likely to display faults or break down, as much as a cheaper alternative.

I think your comments on brand are irrelevant to durability and consumer rights.

You are wrong, price paid and brand are relevant (the brand being relevant because better quality brands cost more).

It is pretty clear from this thread that you know nothing about consumer law, and you do not like my responses because it is not what you want to hear (you have thanked sdooley even though his information is inaccurate!).

Feel free to pursue Tesco because of what you 'feel' is right, however they have the Law on their side, so you will not get very far.

SAGWALA_3

dmg24 wrote: »

You are wrong, price paid and brand are relevant (the brand being relevant because better quality brands cost more).

It is pretty clear from this thread that you know nothing about consumer law, and you do not like my responses because it is not what you want to hear (you have thanked sdooley even though his information is inaccurate!).

Feel free to pursue Tesco because of what you 'feel' is right, however they have the Law on their side, so you will not get very far.

I am not disgruntled with your comments, just trying to decipher the facts.

I realise that after six months of purchasing the item,the oweness is upon me as the consumer to prove that the item was faulty and therefore not fir for purpose.

I was trying to let Tesco know of the mitigating cirucmstances, to allow for them to apply reasonableness in this instance and i do feel that I still have a claim with them and will pursue it.

With regard to knowing 'nothing' about consumer law, that should be fairly obvious, hence the original post.

Your comments are gratefully received and appreciated, however do not get too uptight with yourself or others if you do not agree with or like their comments, I am sure, as devoted as you are, you are not too old too learn or be told.

I have now thanked you also, so hopefully that will allow you to relax a bit.

RobertoMoir

SAGWALA wrote: »

I still feel that Tesco are shirking their responsibility as a retailer, and that my rights should extend further than this.

Which one of your rights, specifically are they "shirking"? If you're certain they're not giving you what you are entitled to then you must surely know where that entitlement comes from?

I'm sympathetic, I can see why you're annoyed, but I think you'll find they've done what they are obliged to do. Now we can argue about the exact amounts (e.g. should it have been £60? Are you lucky it wasn't £50?) but all in all... *shrugs*

hundredk

If, just prior to the TV failing you advertised a 20month old Tesco TV for sale in perfect working order, hardly used etc, how much would you have expected to realitically get?

I'd suggest that £55 (which represents 40% of the price when new) would more than cover the value of the TV. The fact it has seldomly been used probably makes little if any difference to that value.

Personally if I were responding to such an ad, I would be more keen to know the TV wasn't damaged in any way from all the handling to and fro than if it had been used regularly in one place for 20 months.

Sorry, IMO £55 sounds reasonable.

moonrakerz

Under the Sale of Goods Act, unless you can prove that there was an intrinsic fault with the television Tesco only have to accept responsibility for a fault for 6 months from purchase.
I think their response was most reasonable - sorry !

bingo_bango

I have to side with dmg24 here.

There absolutely IS a link between price paid and brand, and the durability of an item.

If you bought a pack of screwdrivers from a pound shop, would you expect them to last as long as a set of Stanley/Draper etc? Certainly no judge would expect them to, and they are the people who make these decisions.

zoelouise88

SAGWALA wrote: »

Briefly, I purchased a brand new TV from Tescos 20 months ago (£139.00). It has only been switched on and used for 5 weeks max. as it was purchased to be our caravan TV and this is where it stays and is used.

SAGWALA wrote: »

No, It it comes home with us all boxed up on our return.

Im a little confused which one is it?

pendulum

Columbo moment!

Amistoso_2

Seeing as the TV is 20 months old however often you claim to use it I think Tesco has been extremely fair in offering you £55 in the form of a gift card.
They didn't really have to do anything at at as it would be well out of waranty.
I also would assume that taking the TV to and fro from your caravan to your home (bit confused on that pont as you also said that the TV stays in the caravan) can't have done the item much good.
Tesco sell loads of stuff in their larger stores so I'm sure you'd be able to find something to spend the money on?