Faulty tv, seler not liable???

Davison01

I have a query about this as it is a situation I am now finding myself in.
We purchased a television (by credit card) from an on-line company March 09. It ahad a one year warranty which has now expired. Two weeks ago the picture went completely. It was taken to a reputable reair shop who informed us that the circuit board which is attached to the back of te flatscreen had burnt out and could not be replaced. It was deemed too expensive to be able to fix. The repair shop also removed this part as it was a fire hazard and we have this now. Having worked in retail I am aware of some consumer rights and I know that when you purchase you are purchasing a product which you can expect to be fit for its purpose. As the circuit board is not from wear and tear, but a fault, my partner checked with the online company who say that if the tele is out of its warranty they are not liable and we should take it up with the manufacturer. From legislation I thought that recent court cases in England and Scotland stated that a reasonable life expectancy for a large flatscreen tele shoudl be between four to six years (depending on the court) Does this mean that the seller should still be responsible, or is he able to pass it to the manufacturer? I thought as a seller he should sell an item which does what it should?
Please help as we have had no tele for too long andI need some advice as to where to go next and what I can and should do.

Thank you for any help you can offer.

Davison01

molerat

The seller is liable but it is up to you to prove that the part was defective and not of sufficient durability when purchased. A written report from the repair shop to that effect would be good. Google the model to see if there are any reports of similar problems. If it is a major brand they may be willing to repair it.

When you have collected enough information you need to send the seller a letter stating that the item was not sufficiently durable under the sale of goods act and that you require them to repair or replace the unit. They may offer you a partial refund based on your 16 months use.

adam.mt

As above, for further info look at the many posts on here which mention Sale of Goods Act and 'inherent' faults (or even google it).

moonrakerz

Davison01 wrote: »

Having worked in retail I am aware of some consumer rights and I know that when you purchase you are purchasing a product which you can expect to be fit for its purpose.

From legislation I thought that recent court cases in England and Scotland stated that a reasonable life expectancy for a large flatscreen tele shoudl be between four to six years (depending on the court)

If you "worked in retail" you would know that your second statement is, I am afraid, rubbish.

Esqui

moonrakerz wrote: »

If you "worked in retail" you would know that your second statement is, I am afraid, rubbish.

Not neccessearily. Go into a random shop and see how many sales staff there know what the SoGA states.

It's a sad but true fact (as opposed to a sad but false fact?). Most only get a very basic idea of it - and if they believe what a large number of customers claim to be the Sale of Goods Act....then they'll be wildly wrong!

Davison01

moonrakerz wrote: »

If you "worked in retail" you would know that your second statement is, I am afraid, rubbish.

Hi Moonrakerz
Thank you for your input it was very useful, but as per my quote which you so aptly highlighted, I said I was aware of 'some' consumer rights. Also the legal details I mentioned were subject to some research I had found, so there is of course a possibility I was incorrect, that is why I am on here for help. It is a shame that you appear to be here for something else, as your comment seems a little harsh and in no way addresses my thread. But again, thank you for highlighting my error, I shall of course dismiss this piece of information and will endeavour to ensure that I double check everything I find on the internet.
If you have any other thoughts on my situation then please feel free to help me out, other than that I hope you have a pleasant day and I shall continue with my query.

Davison01

neilmcl

Judas wrote: »

A board is likely burnt out through wear and tear rather than an inherent fault; you could argue durability but on an 18 month old TV depending on brand and price you would be lucky to get anything other than peanuts back. I would be seriously tempted to cut your losses as the engineers report as well as giving a diagnosis will have to give an "experts" view on it not being durable.

Utter nonsense. An MCB on a LCD TV should not be burning out within 18 months and certainly isn't wear & tear! The repairer's have already diagnosed the fault so to have them put in writing isn't going to cost that much at all, if anything.

moonrakerz

neilmcl wrote: »

Utter nonsense. An MCB on a LCD TV should not be burning out within 18 months and certainly isn't wear & tear! The repairer's have already diagnosed the fault so to have them put in writing isn't going to cost that much at all, if anything.

On what basis do you make that statement ???

The "fault" occurred after 18 months - can you "prove" that the TV was not switched on for 24 hours a day (for example).
It is now up to the purchaser to prove that the fault was inherent due to design or manufacture - that is not done by "Fred" from the local TV shot providing a note.
A TV repair shop is not a reputable source of reliable technical information - you only have to read some of the posts on here to be aware of that.

I am a qualified Engineer - if something is designed to have a "working life " of (say) 10 years - most will last for 10, some will last for 20, some will last for 18 months - that is "life" - NOT an inherent design or manufacture fault.
Could I suggest you Google and read up on the "Bathtub Curve".

The retailer may be willing to show "goodwill" and help out - but when more and more things are bought remotely, purely to get the cheapest possible purchase price - you will get poor or non-existent after sales service.

Davison01 - just to return to your point - there is NO legislation which decrees how long an item shall last - for the very reasons I have outlined above.
Either accept that you were unlucky - or take them to Court - and let us know how you get on !

neilmcl

moonrakerz wrote: »

On what basis do you make that statement ???

The "fault" occurred after 18 months - can you "prove" that the TV was not switched on for 24 hours a day (for example).
It is now up to the purchaser to prove that the fault was inherent due to design or manufacture - that is not done by "Fred" from the local TV shot providing a note.
A TV repair shop is not a reputable source of reliable technical information - you only have to read some of the posts on here to be aware of that.

I am a qualified Engineer - if something is designed to have a "working life " of (say) 10 years - most will last for 10, some will last for 20, some will last for 18 months - that is "life" - NOT an inherent design or manufacture fault.
Could I suggest you Google and read up on the "Bathtub Curve".

The retailer may be willing to show "goodwill" and help out - but when more and more things are bought remotely, purely to get the cheapest possible purchase price - you will get poor or non-existent after sales service.

Davison01 - just to return to your point - there is NO legislation which decrees how long an item shall last - for the very reasons I have outlined above.
Either accept that you were unlucky - or take them to Court - and let us know how you get on !

I think we can reasononably assume that this isn't the case but hey, if he has left the TV on for 24/7 over 18 months then I stand corrected.

Who says a TV repairers isn't a reputable source to diagnose a fault. You should be aware if it went to court the OP only has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fault was inherent, the very fact that an internal part that should normally last the lifetime of the TV fails prematurely with no sign of misuse should in itself be enough to show this. I'd love to see how a retailer gets on in a small claims court with the "things break down - that's life" defence. :rotfl: Maybe you should look to get some expert witness work.

adam.mt

I think Moonrakerz's post is a valid point. However, I extremely doubt more than a handful of cases ever prove an 'inherent' fault with goods that are being claimed on; it's usually a case than the retailer doesn't defend themselves, or if they do then they don't commission their own engineers report. Thus, they lose the case since balance of probably/weight of evidence fails on the customers side.

But since that's usually the case, then is there actually a need to 'prove it'? Answer, no; you just need to show sufficient effort in following the process through. As such a TV repairer's report is likely sufficient.

smcaul

moonrakerz wrote: »

On what basis do you make that statement ???

The "fault" occurred after 18 months - can you "prove" that the TV was not switched on for 24 hours a day (for example).
It is now up to the purchaser to prove that the fault was inherent due to design or manufacture - that is not done by "Fred" from the local TV shot providing a note.
A TV repair shop is not a reputable source of reliable technical information - you only have to read some of the posts on here to be aware of that.

I am a qualified Engineer - if something is designed to have a "working life " of (say) 10 years - most will last for 10, some will last for 20, some will last for 18 months - that is "life" - NOT an inherent design or manufacture fault.
Could I suggest you Google and read up on the "Bathtub Curve".

The retailer may be willing to show "goodwill" and help out - but when more and more things are bought remotely, purely to get the cheapest possible purchase price - you will get poor or non-existent after sales service.

Davison01 - just to return to your point - there is NO legislation which decrees how long an item shall last - for the very reasons I have outlined above.
Either accept that you were unlucky - or take them to Court - and let us know how you get on !

Well, as your a qualified engineer (in what field though!!) you will fully understand the MTBF (google MTBF if you are unsure), which for LCD panels seems to be around the 50,000 to 100,000 hour mark - which would convert to between 5.7 to 11.4 years of continuous use - which kind of blows your "The "fault" occurred after 18 months - can you "prove" that the TV was not switched on for 24 hours a day" out of the water.

But as your an "engineer" you would already have taken then fully into account would you not!

Also, it is proven time and time again (particularly in some of the earlier sky boxes and the Xbox console) that components are used that are not up to the job and so fail, as a result this would be an inherent fault.

But getting back to the OP, it would also depend on the value of the TV, if it was sub £100 then it could be considered that 18 months was an acceptable life span, if it was a £500 TV then a "reasonable" person might expect it last for 5 years as a minimum - but you might have to go to court to do this!!

Also, as you purchased it on your credit card you could try for a refund under the sect 75 consumer credit act - which may well be the far simpler, quicker and easier route!