Dell dead pixel policy

Hammyman

fwor wrote: »

They are not correct if they allege that ISO 9241 is a standard that has any bearing on consumers at all. It certainly is not "the standard that a consumer must accept".

The general title of ISO 9241 is "Ergonomics of Human System Interaction", and if you read the relevant part you will see that it is intended as guidance on what a user (not a consumer) should consider acceptable. The fact remains - any dead pixel is a fault, and if you are not specifically told about that at the time of purchase then you have a right to return it as faulty.

However, I agree that if you were told by Dell at the time of purchase the class of display being provided and what that might mean in terms of pixel defects then you would not have a right to subsequently claim that it was faulty. Do Dell ever state that during the sales process?

Believe whatever you want. The ISO 9241 standard is the one that applies regardless of its title.

Nobody states what class the monitor is in for consumer grade, it is up to the consumer to do the research if there is no dead pixel policy stated.

And anyone who thinks that any computer under £1500 gets a Class 0 display is living in fantasy land.

Hammyman

anewhope wrote: »

Daxx, I would advise you to speak to your local branch of Trading Standards as soon as you are able to. You are in a difficult situation where the basis of Dell's policy is an ISO Standard that, unless you buy a copy, you will not find the complete text on the internet therefore you will not be able to fully understand its implications.

It also puts everyone else in the situation that no one can advise you with any certainty how your statutory consumer rights are affected by this standard.

I posted the standard number and the defect levels under the classes of display or did you completely miss probably the longest post in the thread with the specs of the relevant ISO standard? Those are the standards that apply. As the standards are publicly available, you know where you stand in regards to making a claim if you have a Class 1 display with a couple of dead pixels.

[Deleted User]

Hammyman wrote: »

I posted the standard number and the defect levels under the classes of display or did you completely miss probably the longest post in the thread with the specs of the relevant ISO standard? Those are the standards that apply. As the standards are publicly available, you know where you stand in regards to making a claim if you have a Class 1 display with a couple of dead pixels.

I did see the copy and paste from Wikipedia in your previous post, but the full document isn't freely available (legally anyway) and that extract is a very small exert of a very lengthy technical document and wider framework.

fwor

Hammyman wrote: »

Those are the standards that apply.

You miss the point that the standard only "applies" as far as the makers are concerned. If you read it, you will find that it is not mandatory (nor intended to be in any sense mandatory). It has no status whatsoever in consumer law (unless it is explained at the time of purchase) and so can be ignored by a consumer.

That doesn't mean it's irrelevant. If I wanted to buy - as a business to business buyer - a large number of displays, then I would certainly quote a class as part of the specification.

Hammyman

fwor wrote: »

You miss the point that the standard only "applies" as far as the makers are concerned. If you read it, you will find that it is not mandatory (nor intended to be in any sense mandatory). It has no status whatsoever in consumer law (unless it is explained at the time of purchase) and so can be ignored by a consumer.

Yes it does apply in consumer law. If it is manufactured to a spec which includes defects and meets that spec then it is not deemed to be defective.

That doesn't mean it's irrelevant. If I wanted to buy - as a business to business buyer - a large number of displays, then I would certainly quote a class as part of the specification.

What does that have to do with anything?

funkycoldribena

Hammyman wrote: »

Yes it does apply in consumer law. If it is manufactured to a spec which includes defects and meets that spec then it is not deemed to be defective

I wouldnt give a monkeys-it would go straight back,if I paid with non-defective money,I'd expect a non-defective screen.

Hammyman

funkycoldribena wrote: »

I wouldnt give a monkeys-it would go straight back,if I paid with non-defective money,I'd expect a non-defective screen.

But if it is a Class 1 screen sold as being that spec and it has a few defective pixels then it isn't defective.

You can return it as faulty but they would refuse to refund which leaves you taking it to court at which point they go "This is a Class 1 screen. These are the ISO specs. It meets those specs." Judge then agrees it is not defective and you pay their costs.

If you want a perfect screen you have two choices:

1) Buy from a company that offer a zero defective pixel test.
2) Spend several times the amount that you would in a high street shop or Ebuyer and buy a Class 0 screen.

fwor

Hammyman wrote: »

If it is manufactured to a spec which includes defects and meets that spec then it is not deemed to be defective.

You seem determined to miss the point of what I said.

If you go into PC World (or wherever) and buy a monitor, I can guarantee that you WILL NOT BE TOLD about dead pixels, and you won't be told the class of screen that you are buying.

If you then take it home and find defects - i.e. dead pixels - you are quite entitled to take it back, and if PC World then tell you about a specification that they did not tell you about at the time of sale, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Let me remind you that one of the fundamental points of SOGA is that the seller must point out any defects at the time of sale - it is not down to the buyer to "do their own research" to discover them.

I suspect that you see this differently because you are "in the trade". It is in your interests to have people fooled by this misleading practice, because if they are fooled, you get fewer returns.

What I want to see is a more honest approach. Companies like Dell should either be clear about what they are selling at the time of sale, or they should stop subsequently telling the buyer that they are somehow bound by a standard that they have no reason to know anything about.

esuhl

Hammyman wrote: »

Actually it is a standard with an ISO number applied, ISO-9241-302, 303, 305, 307:2008 which replaced ISO-13406-2. It isn't something they just decide.

ISO-9241-302, 303, 305, 307:2008 pixel defects:

Class 0 panels are completely defect-free, including no full pixel or sub-pixel defects.

Class 1 panels permit any or all of the following:
1 full bright (“stuck on white”) pixel
1 full dark (“stuck off”) pixel
2 single or double bright or dark sub-pixels
3 to 5 “stuck on” or “stuck off” sub-pixels (depending on the number of each)
Class 2 panels permit any or all of the following:
2 full bright pixels
2 full dark pixels
5-10 single or double bright or dark sub-pixels (again, depending on the number of each; no more than 5 bright (“stuck on”) subpixels are permitted).
Class 3 panels permit any or all of the following:
5 full bright pixels
15 full dark pixels
50 single or double sub-pixels stuck on or off

Premium displays which cost £1000's and typically found in medical,military and critical systems are Class 0. Most consumer grade are Class 1 which means they can have up to 5 faulty pixels before being classed as defective.

Dell are completely correct in what they say. You can return under the DSR however you would have to return the whole computer and this would be AT YOUR EXPENSE.

But that's not a standard as you claim - it's several standards. And such "standards" don't over-rule the Sale of Goods Act that state that items sold to consumers must be of "satisfactory quality", unless the faults are pointed out to the consumer at the point of sale.

If the "dead pixel policy" were not included in the conditions of sale then Dell don't really have a leg to stand on if a "reasonable person" would consider the pixel faults to reflect an unsatisfactory quality.

Even if the customer was told about the "dead pixel policy", I'm not sure whether Dell could refuse a refund/replacement as the customer would not be aware of how many pixels were faulty on a particular screen until after they had bought it - the SoGA only limits claims of "satisfactory quality" if the faults were pointed out before the sale - not just the possibility of faults. But I'm not a lawyer, so who knows!

If I sold bottles of beer and you bought a bottle that contained water, could I really keep your money and say, well 99% of my bottles contain beer - that's just the way it is. Would an arbitrary ISO standard that was not referred to in legislation make any difference?

funkycoldribena

Hammyman wrote: »

But if it is a Class 1 screen sold as being that spec and it has a few defective pixels then it isn't defective.

By the words "a few defective pixels" makes it defective in my eyes.
Would they let me pay with a few defective pound coins?