Technika TV - Tesco Offer :-(

McKneff

nomoneytoday wrote: »

But they probably cost more than £200 new for a 19", and didn't come with built in DVD players

It did though, A DVD slot and a camera card slot too.

We had one lot of trouble to be honest. The picture disappeared, only sound on. Son in law took it away to a repairer that he knew, they said they would charge £30 just to look at it,I told him just to not bother and bring it back.
Got it into the house and tried it out just in case, It blumming well worked and has done ever since.

It had just wanted a 50 mile round ride out:rotfl:

OP I would be annoyed but I would also realise that nothing could be done about it.

elvis86

I'm quite surprised by the responses you have got so far.

Is there really no argument to be made that it's reasonable to assume that the anticipated lifespan of a TV would be more than 2 years?

I'm sure I've read on MSE before that although an item may only come with a 12 month warranty, you have the right to expect an item to last for a "reasonable" amount of time.

Admittedly it's the kind of ambiguous "rule" that gives the big company lots of room to argue about the definition of "reasonable", and makes the small man feel inclined to give up, but I would've thought that maybe it was worth a go?

Jakg

Technika is a budget brand.

I would say that 4 years for a budget TV is unreasonable - yes, CRTs lasted longer but they were always more expensive!

2 years & £20 refund implies an expected lifespan of 2 years 1 month... A little on the short side IMO, but what your after (a replacement or some refund over 50% of the value) would be unreasonable IMO.

vyle

Jakg wrote: »

Technika is a budget brand.

I would say that 4 years for a budget TV is unreasonable - yes, CRTs lasted longer but they were always more expensive!

2 years & £20 refund implies an expected lifespan of 2 years 1 month... A little on the short side IMO, but what your after (a replacement or some refund over 50% of the value) would be unreasonable IMO.

One point about CRTs as well. Someone buying CRTs in the mid 90s was buying a product that had been mainstream for nearly 40 years, vs something that's been mainstream for less than 10 (I know LCD screens have been 'around' for longer, but CRTs were doing the rounds in the 1920s).

The point being that they'd kinda got more reliable over time, from setting fire to curtains and randomly blowing up, to actually working for a long time. You could barely get a watchable picture on an LCD 10 years ago.

DD265

I'd want it to last too.

After 6 months the onus is on you to prove that it has a manufacturing fault, so you're looking at an independent report to that effect. I'm afraid that I don't know how much that would cost, but surely somebody here would.

rustyboy21

What you also have to take into account is that , although it is 2 years old, you would have to show that it had an inherent fault from purchase. You would have to supply an independant report to state above.

Also they only have to 'effect a repair' This would mean that if you argued successfully, they would supply the parts required, but you would possibly have to pay for the labour charge, which could work out pretty expensve. You do not have automatic right to a replacement or refund.

The problem we all have now is that everything has turned into consumerable products. Nothing is built to last anymore and it is easier and usually cheaper to dump them and buy new. A trip to the local recycling dump testifies to that. Parts cost more than the product sometimes. I sell gas fires and one supplier sells a fire which I sell for £199. I was asked for a new set of coals the other week. I almsot fell over when I was quoted, to me to buy at £139 ! I told the customer that it would more than likely be better to buy a new fire, I said I couldn't let them pay that much for the coals and discounted another fire I had in stock for a while to the same price, which I knew would be cheaper for parts in future.

I have now delisted that supplier as I caan't face the embarrassment of telling future customer how much the parts would be if needed.

unholyangel

McKneff wrote: »

Unless you want to pay someone for an endependant report to find out if it has an inherant fault, which will be refunded if it is found to be so, but if not, you are stuffed.

Think about it, if you paid £200 for it, it has cost you about £4 a week,

Personally, I would just take the £20 and vote with your feet.

I have 2 Technika TVs which Ive had for 7/8 years without a problem.

Sorry to be pedantic but £200 - £20 refund = £180 / 104 = £1.73.

I think perhaps you read the tesco "over 12 month form" as the op having the tv a year? Either that or i'm so tired i'm seeing things

Personally I think the offer is a bit low. Could you really pick up a 2nd hand 2 year old one for £20? I think maybe £50-70 would be more realistic.

OP has a few choices. He can accept their offer. He could ask a repairman to complete a report (in case needed to show there is an inherent fault) and also ask for a quote on how much it would cost to fix and if not too expensive, take it back to tesco (for reimbursement of the report - although no point getting one unless tesco dig their heels in!) and offer it as an alternative. He could ask them to increase their offer.

unholyangel

rustyboy21 wrote: »

What you also have to take into account is that , although it is 2 years old, you would have to show that it had an inherent fault from purchase. You would have to supply an independant report to state above.

The report isnt mandatory. The retailer can request proof the fault is inherent and hasnt been caused through user error or natural wear n tear. They may not require it at all or may require some lesser form of "proof" that satisfies them the fault was inherent. I've yet to see a judge who will waste time ascertaining information which both parties believe to be true.

While it is usually reimbursed as a consequential loss, remember that the party suffering the loss has a duty to mitigate those losses.

roddydogs

Exactly how can the most skilled "Engineer" state categorically the a Fault was "Inherent"?

ThumbRemote

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Also they only have to 'effect a repair' This would mean that if you argued successfully, they would supply the parts required, but you would possibly have to pay for the labour charge, which could work out pretty expensve.

That information is completely wrong. The SoGA is quite clear that if 'goods which do not conform to the contract of sale' then the buyer may require the seller 'to repair the goods'.

There is no concept whatsoever of providing only parts.