Faulty 4yr Old TV..

arcon5

vyle wrote: »

And why didn't you buy it from richer sounds or JL with a 5 year guarantee?

Maybe they didn't offer this 5 year guarantee 4 years ago? Maybe op hadn't heard of them or they didn't come up in search results when op was choosing a TV? Maybe theirs stores aren't local to op?

CoolHotCold

I love this consumer rights forum, not only does the OP get advice on how to deal with the issue, but after they get advice the thread turns into one where purchases are criticised and the regular posters take pop shots at each other. So I've decided to join in and post gifs in threads that go off-tangent in a attempt to lighten the mood.


Anyway OP, comeback if you need anymore help or if you got everything sorted, rarely do we get feedback on the advice given.

Zandoni

wealdroam wrote: »

And your post is?

That's ok then.

It's more helpful than yours

bosseyed

How do, just to post a link to my helpful thread I wrote a while back detailing how I got £500 out of Dixons for a busted TV that was over 3 years old. May not necessarily be applicable to your situation, but does note the '6 year window' along with SOGA and some stuff from RETRA and just proves it can be worth chasing the issue with the retailer you bought it from.

Link here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2818102

StuieUK34

Cookie Monster rocks!!!!!

To those with no brains, best you read this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8253915.stm

It refers to 'fit for purpose' info....
If i buy a telly for £20 or £2000000000000000 , i expect that telly to be doing what it says on the front, displaying TV......

Example:
Bill puts telly in the corner, away from water/kids/throwing objects/surge protected, etc etc etc.....

So with the TV switched on, its doing its job. Without any bad stuff going towards it, Bill expects his telly to do as described, without faults. Thats the reason he bought it.....

So 1yr, 2yr, 4yr or 5yr down the road, of doing what it is described to do, Bill expects his telly to work the way it is described..
IE: MUST BE OF SATISFACTOY BUILD and AS DESCRIBED.... its described as telly, not as a telly that will last only 4 years......

However, good luck getting a company to fix its faults is unheard of!

yangptangkipperbang

maninthestreet wrote: »

Really? My last TV was still going stong after 22 years.
If I had paid £900 for a TV, I would expect to get more than just 4 year's use out of it.

Did you offer to pay the shop extra money as it lasted so long ? With a break down - if you can prove that this breaking down was due to faulty design or manufacture then you can claim some redress from the retailer. Otherwise - it's the luck of the draw !

arcon5

StuieUK34 wrote: »

Cookie Monster rocks!!!!!

To those with no brains, best you read this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8253915.stm

It refers to 'fit for purpose' info....
If i buy a telly for £20 or £2000000000000000 , i expect that telly to be doing what it says on the front, displaying TV......

Example:
Bill puts telly in the corner, away from water/kids/throwing objects/surge protected, etc etc etc.....

So with the TV switched on, its doing its job. Without any bad stuff going towards it, Bill expects his telly to do as described, without faults. Thats the reason he bought it.....

So 1yr, 2yr, 4yr or 5yr down the road, of doing what it is described to do, Bill expects his telly to work the way it is described..
IE: MUST BE OF SATISFACTOY BUILD and AS DESCRIBED.... its described as telly, not as a telly that will last only 4 years......

However, good luck getting a company to fix its faults is unheard of!

It must be of satisfactory quality and last a reasonable time, and SOGA does consider price a factor when assessing what is reasonable.

Price and life span aren't always linked! For example, if you buy a packet of steak for £5 and a packet for £15 the £15 would likely be a better quality but both would probably go off at a similar time.

It is likely a £900 TV will have a vast majority more features than £20, this is what you are paying the difference for - not necessarily because it will last longer. Although any reasonable person would probably expect it to be made with higher quality materials, thus last longer.

Products don't last indefinitely, they do deteriorate over time, so you can't for example expect to buy a product that will work in the way intended for ever, so as long as a product has lasted a reasonable time you don't necessarily have a case of 'not fit for purpose'.


Although i'm not sure why you feel other posters have "no brains". It has been agreed amongst the majority that ops TV should last longer than 4 years and his rights explained.

The link you post to is a summary of key laws, maybe if you bothered to look around MSE you would find a more in depth article of consumer rights.

vyle

Wow I must have drunk more than I thought last night because I don't remember posting that .

But on the other hand, it kinda still stands when they were both doing 5 yr warranties four years ago, and both are national chains so it isn't like a modicum of research would have brought them up.

It seems like every few days someone posts an "I bought from somewhere that offers a one year warranty, and more than a year has passed and now I have to go through the hassle of legal action." thread, when they could have saved themselves a lot of time and hassle with a bit of research before hand.

Of course, they can't go back and change the past, but they now know that there are places that do offer such protection for their next tv purchase...which will inevitably be from currys, PC world, comet or dixons, or possibly tesco, because they're a bit cheaper and hey, it isn't like two TVs could fail outside of guarantee, right?

Furthermore, this must have been a low end TV, because a half decent 32" tv in 2008 was about £800, a good one was about £1000, and a very good one was in the region of £1500-1800

So for a 42" tv to be 900? Considering the market at the time, OP may not get a whole lot back even if they win.