LG plasma TV fault

astrogeezer

We have a 50'' LG plasma TV bought from Richersounds August 2009. The TV was bought for us by our children as a retirement gift and had a one year warranty only. Unfortunately, the TV is now defective and an engineer's report states one of the main component boards and the screen itself is faulty.The cost of repair is uneconomical and could cost £500 or so. As the TV is barely 2 years old, should we expect the equipment to last longer than it has, with or without reference to a warranty? We do not overuse the equipment as we only watch TV in the evenings for 3-4 hours. LG customer services don't want to know about our complaints and referred us to Richersounds who, in turn referred us back to LG etc etc.
So basically, do we have any consumer rights to support us? Any advice would certainly help us to decide how to proceed. Obliged.

almillar

Under the Sale of Goods Act, the product must be of 'reasonable' quality and fit for purpose. Reasonable is what any normal person would expect. I would certainly expect a big TV from a good brand like LG to last more than 2 years. Read up on the Sale of Goods Act - there's plenty of information on this site under the 'Shopping' tab.

moonrakerz

almillar wrote: »

the product must be of 'reasonable' quality .................. Reasonable is what any normal person would expect. I would certainly expect a big TV from a good brand like LG to last more than 2 years.

Just because an item is of "reasonable quality" does not mean that it should last for any particular time. If you want a TV to last at least (say) 5 years - buy one from a retailer who gives a 5 year warranty. (Which I believe is available from Richersounds)

All things break down - it is unreasonable to expect them NOT to.

LG are quite correct in saying go back to the retailer.

almillar

moonrakerz - what about SAD FART?
http://images.moneysavingexpert.com/images/sadfart3.gif
SOGA states that an item SHOULD last a reasonable amount of time, and as I said above, I don't think anyone would argue that 2yrs is a reasonable amount of time for a big TV from a big brand.
Don't let shops hide behind 'you should have got a warranty' - you sound like Ole' Gil trying to sell all those computers to Springfield Elementary. Before he does the deal he tries to sell them rustproofing...

moonrakerz

almillar wrote: »

SAD FART?..............

SOGA states that an item SHOULD last a reasonable amount of time, .

Your choice of words was very appropriate as you seem to be talking out of the relevant part of your anatomy.

SoGA does NOT state "that an item should last a reasonable length of time" - you should read the Act - not the multitude of incorrect statements made on this and other websites.

"(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability."

"Goods cannot always be expected to work
fault-free. They can break down through
normal use. Buyers cannot, therefore,
expect to hold the seller responsible for fair
wear and tear. There needs to be a fault that
was present on the day of sale even though
it only became apparent later on, or a
misdescription of the goods, or a lack of
durability that suggests the goods were not
of satisfactory quality to start with."

The only time scale mentioned in the Act is the 6 month point where the responsibility of proving where an inherent fault lay transfers to the purchaser.

almillar

I commend your diligence Moonrakerz, have you taken this up with the MSE team?
OK then I'll rephrase - THIS WEBSITE states that the item should last a reasonable length of time.
2B does state amongst others, and I can only assume that there have been court cases setting precedents for the MSE advice to be as above.
I still think OP has a case against the retailer.