refund under warranty

vik1491

Hello. I bought a 60 inch plasma tv (lg 60pk590) from electrocentre last year for £1300. It was found to be faulty under warranty around 12 months after purchase. I had 3 months to send it back so I sent it back around 15 months after purchase. I have now received a refund from electrocentre of £779. Does this sound right? It seems like I got a raw deal here...

Their terms and conditions are very vague. Under the warrany and returns section Electro Centre Ltd - Terms & Conditions it says

Goods that cannot be repaired or replaced after the first 28 days of purchase, shall be refunded in line with the amount of usage the customer has obtained from the product.

Olokia

Sounds right to me, you used it for 12 months. You can't expect to just get the tv for free for that time. I just calculated depreciation and it comes out at £1000ish if you had sent it back after 12 months and £820 after 15 months. Seems fair to me only £50 difference. This is based on a TV having a 5 year lifetime.

(I'm not an accountant so I may have got my calculations wrong)

vik1491

did i say i was expecting to get the tv for free? 40% loss in value in little over a year seems harsh

Olokia

Sorry just updated my post with some calculations. Depreciation feels fastest in the first year (as it is on the full amount) and I did read some where that a TV is 40%.

vik1491

ok fair enough. i guess i was just unfortunate the tv happened to break down in the first year!!! thanks

Olokia

Someone may come along to contradict me but this is my understanding of why they gave you that much back

bb999

It may be that TV's depreciate more in the 1st year, but why should the OP have to suffer this due to a faulty product.
I would argue that the refund should be more like £975 based on the 5 year lifespan.
If you paid by credit card then you should also put the claim to the card company because they are equally liable for any fault.

Olokia

bb999 wrote: »

It may be that TV's depreciate more in the 1st year, but why should the OP have to suffer this due to a faulty product.
I would argue that the refund should be more like £975 based on the 5 year lifespan.
If you paid by credit card then you should also put the claim to the card company because they are equally liable for any fault.

I don't disagree with this, I just provided an explanation of why it was that amount

wealdroam

bb999 wrote: »

It may be that TV's depreciate more in the 1st year, but why should the OP have to suffer this due to a faulty product.

The idea is that you could take the money offered and buy a similar model of the same age on the open market.

As the model you are theoretically intending to buy has depreciated at a similar rate, the money offered would be enough to make the purchase.

Thus, in theory, the OP suffers no loss.

vik1491

bb999 wrote: »

It may be that TV's depreciate more in the 1st year, but why should the OP have to suffer this due to a faulty product.
I would argue that the refund should be more like £975 based on the 5 year lifespan.
If you paid by credit card then you should also put the claim to the card company because they are equally liable for any fault.

yes i payed via mbna credit card. can you please confirm how I can put a request to the credit card company? I have already received 779 from the retailer. can i still claim from the credit card co?

vyle

Yeah with TVs, most of the time it's a refund to get something of a similar specification, which will invariably be cheaper.

One could argue that there aren't that many 65" TVs about, and they're mostly better manufacturers (Panasonic, samsung) but by comparison with smaller TVs:

Last year, Samsung released the 40C7000 last year, starting at £1800ish.

It required a USB dongle to connect to the Smart apps (purchased separately), boasted edge lit LEDs, but not locally dimming. Its motionflow rate was 200hz and its sound was abominable.

This year:

40D6530 - currently around £700. Wireless built in, 400hz motionflow, still edge lit, but not locally dimming and its sound is poor, rather than abominable.

Superior specs for around a third of the price.