Maplin TV fails after 15 months, they refuse to replace, fix or refund

ermine

In March 2012 I bought a 7" portable TV from Maplin. I fire this up today to find the screen is on the blink.

I take it down to Maplin Ipswich, where they take a look, go hum, yes, it's broken, they send man out to get one from the back which they have, then sales droid observes the receitp is more than 365 days old.

They start to spin me a line about "out of guarantee sir, nothing we can do" so I introduce him to the sale of goods act and how any reasonable persen expects a TV to last more than a year.

So-called manager offers me £15 off a new one. I repeat that I'd just like the old one working or a replacement thanks very much. He says he can't do that. Calls customer service who offer than I can sent the TV back to their place and if they can fix it they will waive the £15 fee, if they can't they'll send it back unfixed.

What exactly do I need to say, what is the protocol? I didn't take the send back as I am not prepared to accept their best efforts policy. Somehow I need to add something to the effect fo if I give this to you I do not accept that if it is unrepairable that is the end of the matter.

They're welcome to fix it if they can, otherwise replace or refund, and I'm definitely not paying them to fix it. In my view it wasn't of satisfactory quality because consumer durables should last longer than 15 months.

I get the feeling Maplin is going to take the Ryanair approach to this and simply stonewall. It is only £70 in the end, however, I'm going to at least take up a bit more of their time. I have downloaded Martin's template. At the end it says

I look forward to a full response to my letter within 7 days or I shall seek legal advice in order to take the matter further.

which seems a bit green-ink brigade to me. The costs of the small claims court seem to be about £50, I'd have to be a little bit nutty to threaten legal action costing at least £50 for a £70 TV

Anybody actually had any success with getting past the Maplin "our guarantee is only 1 year" line?

Is there anywhere else I can take this to get more firepower if their head office doesn't answer the template letter? Is it worth trying Trading Standards after I've sent the letter if I get no reply?

ILW

15 months for 75 quid is borderline merchantable quality.

gnaril

Its unfortunate you went armed with your so called SOGA.

You should have read the thing before sounding silly to the store.

After 6 months its up to you the consumer to prove a manufacturing fault or defect with the item that was inherent at point of sale.

The item is relatively cheap, and probably a relatively crap brand.

There is lots of sites that give you the headline info on Sale of Goods Act - google it.

If you are going to pursue it and unhappy with their stance.

Get an independent report which backs up your case and they should offer the resolution you are after and entitled to which is a repair or replacement where appropriate.

Good luck.

pinkshoes

As above, under SOGA, you need to prove it was faulty before going down the refund/replace/repair line.

I would expect it to last 4+ years, so I'd be wanting a 70% refund for just 15 months use. Go back, propose a refund/replacement again, and if they refuse, tell them you will be paying for an independent report to prove it was faulty, and will be billing them for the report as well as a replacement/repair/refund.

They might play ball nicely if they know it'll cost them more.

yangptangkipperbang

ILW wrote: »

15 months for 75 quid is borderline merchantable quality.

pinkshoes wrote: »

I would expect it to last 4+ years,

......you pays your money...................

frugal_mike

To be fair it is only a 7" tv, so I would expect it to be cheap. I haven't looked at what's available in tiny tv's, but I wouldn't be surprised if they would not be able to sell them for more than that.

arcon5

If it's a 15" no thrills top set i'd also expect 3/4+ years.

If a large flat screen, super modern TV with things like built in freeview, then you bought a cheap, cr*p qualitry TV so 2+ years would be reasonable IMO

ermine

Thanks guys. My expectation of how long gadgets should last has clearly not tracked common expectation downwards.

I'll let it go and use the information to inform how much I'm prepared to pay for electronics in future - along the lines of "if I get a year's use and it dies, is the price reasonabe for the utility delievered"

......you pays your money.......

The trouble is that the middle ground of products has disappeared. The choice is either cheap, and a universal expectation of unreliable, or professional grade at £500. There isn't a middle market option, and it seems to apply to a lot of electronic stuff now, the market is all bunched up down the bottom end, with that 'if it works for a year then it doesn't owe you anything' assumption.

frugal_mike

ermine wrote: »

Thanks guys. My expectation of how long gadgets should last has clearly not tracked common expectation downwards.

I'll let it go and use the information to inform how much I'm prepared to pay for electronics in future - along the lines of "if I get a year's use and it dies, is the price reasonabe for the utility delievered"

The trouble is that the middle ground of products has disappeared. The choice is either cheap, and a universal expectation of unreliable, or professional grade at £500. There isn't a middle market option, and it seems to apply to a lot of electronic stuff now, the market is all bunched up down the bottom end, with that 'if it works for a year then it doesn't owe you anything' assumption.

Well that link you posted is not for a tv, its for a high spec monitor to attach to a professional quality DSLR camera.

If the original gadget you posted was actually a portable 7" tv then I'm not surprised there is no higher spec/value market. At that size they are competing with phones and tablets that will almost certainly do a better job anywhere they can get an internet signal.

ILW

£70 is about 4 or 5 hours work on average wages.

ermine

frugal_mike wrote: »

Well that link you posted is not for a tv, its for a high spec monitor to attach to a professional quality DSLR camera.

If the original gadget you posted was actually a portable 7" tv then I'm not surprised there is no higher spec/value market. At that size they are competing with phones and tablets that will almost certainly do a better job anywhere they can get an internet signal.

I was using it to aim CCTV cameras, so the canford device is probably the high end tool for the job. The actual Maplin device was this

I'm still a little bit amazed that the expected service life of a TV in the modern world is only expected to be a little over a year, but that seems to be the general feeling, so fair enough. live and learn. I will take the damn thing to pieces and see if there are any obvious bad connections, if not I'll break it up with a hammer and stop it costing me any more time