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

pinkshoes

ermine wrote: »

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

Really?!?!? I don't know anyone that would be happy if their TV died within 2 years!

I expect mine to last for at least 4, probably up to 6 years! (And the enormous Sony thing in the bedroom is now 12 years old and STILL won't die!!!)

By offering £15, that's 20% of the original price, so they're implying it's had 80% of it's expected life, which would mean they'd expect their products to die after just 18 months of use!!

To me that is NOT acceptable.

I'd go back and insist on a much larger partial refund!

shaun_from_Africa

ermine,

when you stated that "I was using it to aim CCTV cameras," does this mean that you set up CCTV as a business or were you simply setting up devices on your own property?

If it's the former, then a lot of the SOGA doesn't doesn't apply to the sale, and as the TV in question is only a cheapie model aimed at consumers and not businesses, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of getting a resolution in your favour if you did decide on legal action.

ermine

@pinkshoes I was surprised, but about 50% of the feeling on here and some people I've asked IRL seem to be along the lines of "well what d'you expect for the price".

Things seem to be trending towards you get a lot of functionality for your money but things are expendable and not repairable. I normally expect to keep something like a TV for five to ten years, and my hi-fi preamplifier is still in service after 30 years although I've had to change the volume control. But this TV is probably not repairable unless it's a bad solder joint.

@shaun I used it for aiming CCTV cameras at bird boxes and feeders. I have a massive barn owl box on a site without mains power and frequent sightings of the owl with a lot of pellets and crap underneath the box. So it's not for professional use.

arcon5

ILW wrote: »

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

Or about 11 hours on minimum wage

pinkshoes

ermine wrote: »

@pinkshoes I was surprised, but about 50% of the feeling on here and some people I've asked IRL seem to be along the lines of "well what d'you expect for the price".
.

£70 for a 7" TV isn't exactly cheap!! I'm thinking perhaps people misread the 7" bit??? It's more mid range price...

I think I'd still have one more try at getting a resolution.

yangptangkipperbang

pinkshoes wrote: »

Really?!?!? I don't know anyone that would be happy if their TV died within 2 years!

I expect mine to last for at least 4, probably up to 6 years! (And the enormous Sony thing in the bedroom is now 12 years old and STILL won't die!!!)

By offering £15, that's 20% of the original price, so they're implying it's had 80% of it's expected life, which would mean they'd expect their products to die after just 18 months of use!!

To me that is NOT acceptable.

I'd go back and insist on a much larger partial refund!

The only problem the retailer (or manufacturer) has is that he has no idea of how many hours that TV (or any item) has been used. Any item has a "design life" - usually expressed in hours for consumer electronics. Once those hours are "used up" there is a much greater chance of the item failing.

Is it really playing fair for the consumer to insist that his TV should have lasted for 4, or 6 years when he has had it on for 12 hours a day ???? Using washing machine 10 times a day, using a a domestic microwave in a cafe - you name it, it happens.

Apart from which - EVERYTHING will fail at some time or other. If a TV has a design life of 25,000 hours, some will fail after a few hours (that is why you usually get a 12 month guarantee), others will last for 50,000 hours. The average life will be around the 25,000 mark, so the designer/manufacturer has achieved his aim. It could be designed to last 50,000 hrs, but the £250 TV then costs £500 - how many people would pay the extra - especially with the speed at which modern electronics is developing.

I know it sounds incredibly boring, but I do wish people would read up on "reliability engineering" (start with the "bathtub curve" - it's nothing to do with personal hygiene either !) - instead of making rash statements about the life of equipment when they have absolutely no idea of the design/manufacture of the item in question.

I'm afraid that your (extremely dodgy) statement about expected life - is also NOT acceptable !

pinkshoes

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

The only problem the retailer (or manufacturer) has is that he has no idea of how many hours that TV (or any item) has been used. Any item has a "design life" - usually expressed in hours for consumer electronics. Once those hours are "used up" there is a much greater chance of the item failing.

Is it really playing fair for the consumer to insist that his TV should have lasted for 4, or 6 years when he has had it on for 12 hours a day ???? Using washing machine 10 times a day, using a a domestic microwave in a cafe - you name it, it happens.

Apart from which - EVERYTHING will fail at some time or other. If a TV has a design life of 25,000 hours, some will fail after a few hours (that is why you usually get a 12 month guarantee), others will last for 50,000 hours. The average life will be around the 25,000 mark, so the designer/manufacturer has achieved his aim. It could be designed to last 50,000 hrs, but the £250 TV then costs £500 - how many people would pay the extra - especially with the speed at which modern electronics is developing.

I know it sounds incredibly boring, but I do wish people would read up on "reliability engineering" (start with the "bathtub curve" - it's nothing to do with personal hygiene either !) - instead of making rash statements about the life of equipment when they have absolutely no idea of the design/manufacture of the item in question.

I'm afraid that your (extremely dodgy) statement about expected life - is also NOT acceptable !

As someone who has 10 years experience in design engineering, I'm assuming the OP is complaining because he's been an "average" user and not excessively used the TV!!

vyle

arcon5 wrote: »

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

Just to point out that if you're buying a TV in the UK it WILL have freeview in it, or it's not a TV. Freeview isn't super modern, it's been around in some capacity since 2000/2001 (ITV digital) and has been present in all TVs manufactured since 2010.... nothing to do with the thread but it's something that bothers me. Why would companies make TVs that can't work as a TV?

ermine

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

The only problem the retailer (or manufacturer) has is that he has no idea of how many hours that TV (or any item) has been used. Any item has a "design life" - usually expressed in hours for consumer electronics. Once those hours are "used up" there is a much greater chance of the item failing.

I am slightly disturbed by the concept - this TV has an LCD, not a CRT. What is the wear mechanism you allude to? Perhaps the CCFL lamp and inverter, but as it is neither of these has failed.

FWIW it was used less than I'd expect a TV to be used normally. I used it to keep an eye on my garage for an hour or so a day for a couple of months, on my sparrow feeder for another few hours a day, and to focus another cam in a bird box.

I'm prepared to accept the general expectation for the service life of a gadget like this is low, but there's no wear mechanism acting over this timescale - it's the luck of the draw as to whether something designed down to a price keeps working. The old saw that something with a million parts each with a million to one chance of failing in a day has a 50% chance of lasting a day if every bit has to work to deliver the end result still applies.

This isn't wear, it's probability and tolerances. These were set when the TV was made. I'm familiar enough with the bathtub curve, and here the initial bit was probably extended. A solid state TV doesn't reach senescence on a component level in 15 months unless something is wrong with the design IMO. But the general expectation of reliability seems to be lower than I'd expect or design to, and since the SOGA seems to be about typical consumer expectation, it seems I'm SOL here. I'm genuinely surprised, but prepared to learn, and alter my expectations to line up with what seems to be the majority opinion.