TV not Working

shaun_from_Africa

naedanger wrote: »

I think you can get the tv fixed meantime and then your claim is for the cost of repair plus your costs (court fees and engineer's report).

If the retailer is liable for providing a remedy (repair, replacement or refund), they must be given the opportunity to do this and they can opt for which ever one is most cost effective for them.

The SOGA basically states that the consumer can get the retailer to provide a remedy but it says nothing about getting a third party to do so and then charging the retailer the costs incurred.

(1) If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller
(a) to repair the goods, or
(b) to replace the goods.
(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

naedanger

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If the retailer is liable for providing a remedy (repair, replacement or refund), they must be given the opportunity to do this and they can opt for which ever one is most cost effective for them.

The SOGA basically states that the consumer can get the retailer to provide a remedy but it says nothing about getting a third party to do so and then charging the retailer the costs incurred.

But the retailer was given the opportunity but is denying any responsibility. "As it stands we are refusing the return and wont pay towards any repairs".

As a result of the retailer's refusal to remedy the situation the OP will need to pay to get the tv fixed. He is then entitled to be compensated for this cost so that he is put back into the position he would have been had the contract been properly fulfilled.

(Obviously the recovery of this cost will depend on him winning his case since only in this scenario has the retailer failed to properly fulfil the contract.)

CoolHotCold

naedanger wrote: »

But the retailer was given the opportunity but is denying any responsibility. "As it stands we are refusing the return and wont pay towards any repairs".

As a result of the retailer's refusal to remedy the situation the OP will need to pay to get the tv fixed. He is then entitled to be compensated for this cost so that he is put back into the position he would have been had the contract been properly fulfilled.

(Obviously the recovery of this cost will depend on him winning his case since only in this scenario has the retailer failed to properly fulfil the contract.)

As is their legal right. After 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove inherent fault, the retailer doesn't have to do a dammed thing.

The retailer is following the law, and if the consumer does do what you're suggesting the retailer will not be liable.

The consumer can't just get a report and get the TV fixed and send the bill to the retailer, doesn't work that way. You have to give the retailer the opportunity to resolve the issue after you have satisfied the SoGA.

naedanger

CoolHotCold wrote: »

As is their legal right. After 6 months the onus is on the consumer to prove inherent fault, the retailer doesn't have to do a dammed thing.

The retailer is following the law, and if the consumer does do what you're suggesting the retailer will not be liable.

The consumer can't just get a report and get the TV fixed and send the bill to the retailer, doesn't work that way. You have to give the retailer the opportunity to resolve the issue after you have satisfied the SoGA.

To the OP: you will see another poster is disagreeing with my view.

However I am now strongly of the view that as the retailer has refused to remedy the situation you are entitled to get the item repaired and if you win your case (i.e. the judge agrees the item was inherently faulty) then your repair cost (assuming it is not unreasonable) will be refunded. [Actually I would suggest that the letter before action be sent before instructing the repair. That is, give the retailer one last chance to fix the problem so you can show you have been completely reasonable. In the letter before action you state that if they do not remedy the situation by offering to repair, replace or refund the item you will have it repaired and seek to recover your costs through legal action.]

I am basing my assessment both on my general understanding of the situation and from reading the relevant sections of the SOGA. (See link at the end of this post.)

This act makes no reference to independent reports. It assumes there is no dispute over whether or not the tv "conformed" at the point of sale (i.e. whether it was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale). If the item did not conform the SOGA simply requires the retailer to remedy the situation "within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer". [There is no requirement for the consumer to prove the item failed to conform before the retailer is required to remedy the situation.]

The retailer is disputing the tv failed to conform. However disputing part of a contract does not entitle someone to breach it. Therefore if the item is found to have "not conformed" then they will have breached the contract as they failed to remedy the situation within a reasonable time. By breaching the contract they will be liable to pay for the losses (i.e. your repair costs) you incurred to put yourself back into the position you would have been had they not breached it.

The independent report is not any legal requirement. However if the matter gets to court then you need to show on the balance of probability the item did not conform at the point of sale. In practice you would be unable to do so without an independent report. Therefore in practice you need this report because the retailer is disputing that the item did not conform.

I intend not to reply or get involved in any discussion with other posters as experience has shown me it is a waste of time. However I will reply to you if you have any questions or doubts as you have an interest in getting to the right answer. (If I read something that makes me change my view I will say. But I think that unlikely.)

SOGA:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

forgotmyname

Samsung power supplies use CapXon capacitors which fail far too quickly.

CoolHotCold

NaeDanger is misleading you.

Introductory

 
(1)This section applies if—
(a)the buyer deals as consumer or, in Scotland, there is a consumer contract in which the buyer is a consumer, and
(b)the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.
(2)If this section applies, the buyer has the right—
(a)under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or
(b)under and in accordance with section 48C below—
(i)to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(ii)to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.
Annotations: Help about Annotation
Amendments (Textual)
F39
Pt. 5A (ss. 48A-48F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 5
F4048BRepair or replacement of the goods

 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.
Annotations: Help about Annotation
Amendments (Textual)
F40
Pt. 5A (ss. 48A-48F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 5
F4148CReduction of purchase price or rescission of contract

 
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may—
(a)require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or
(b)rescind the contract with regard to those goods,if the condition in subsection (2) below is satisfied.
(2)The condition is that—
(a)by virtue of section 48B(3) above the buyer may require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or
(b)the buyer has required the seller to repair or replace the goods, but the seller is in breach of the requirement of section 48B(2)(a) above to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(3)For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.
Annotations: Help about Annotation
Amendments (Textual)
F41
Pt. 5A (ss. 48A-48F) inserted (31.3.2003) by S.I. 2002/3045, reg. 5
F4248DRelation to other remedies etc.

 
(1)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods the buyer must not act under subsection (2) until he has given the seller a reasonable time in which to repair or replace (as the case may be) the goods.
(2)The buyer acts under this subsection if—
(a)in England and Wales or Northern Ireland he rejects the goods and terminates the contract for breach of condition;
(b)in Scotland he rejects any goods delivered under the contract and treats it as repudiated;
(c)he requires the goods to be replaced or repaired (as the case may be).

The above quote is from the SoGA 1979 As Amended.

As you can clearly see, you MUST give the retailer the right to repair/replace/refund (can be partial) AND If they want the ability to have the item inspected by their own engineers if they dispute what proof you have.

NaeDanger has a warped view of the law and ignores other users on here who disagree with him.

naedanger

To the OP:

OK, I am having second thoughts regarding the advisability of getting the repair done now.

I still believe that the retailer has been given an opportunity to fix the tv, and that there is nothing in the SOGA to require you to get a report before the retailer is responsible for remedying the failure. Furthermore, given their response, I do not the believe the issue with their failure to remedy the matter is that you have not given them enough time.

However both parties should have tried to resolve the matter reasonably before taking legal action. I believe that the retailer, by refusing to help agree a resolution process, will probably be seen to be more at fault here. But I could also see your failure to supply evidence to support the view the item is inherently faulty could count against you.

If you get the report done then clearly you are being more reasonable. Unfortunately I suspect that won't be the end of the matter and they may continue to be unhelpful.

If possible I suggest you consult Citizen's Advice before doing anything further.

Failing that I would speak to you engineer and see what he will charge for producing the report and an estimate of the repair cost. See if you can get a discount for a verbal report, so that if his conclusion is not helpful you don't waste his time and your money writing up the report.

If the report says the fault was on the balance of probability inherent, then send your report to the retailer and say if they don't respond within x days you will start legal action. Then after x days, if you have heard nothing, send your letter before action etc.

Then you will need to see how they respond. (If at that stage they still refuse to help you may have the same dilemma, i.e. instruct repair and sue for the cost or wait longer if they raise doubts, and so on.)

It seems like you could be a long time without a tv.

The following is a useful, if long, read:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478059/money-claim-online-user-guide.pdf

By the way if the repair cost is very small you may be better settling. Partly because the loss should you lose will then be high relative to your gain should you win. And partly that the retailer may be able to argue a few minor repairs are not unreasonable on a high ticket item (even if your report says otherwise).

Fosterdog

So far the retailer has done nothing wrong, you have approached them and reported a fault with a TV you have been using for 16 months. They don't have to offer an immediate remedy as right now nobody knows why the fault has occurred. They haven't said that they won't offer you a remedy only that they require you to prove firstly that the TV is faulty and secondly that any fault is inherent and not down to misuse or fair wear and tear. Once you offer that proof they will probably be quite quick to respond and offer you a remedy that is reasonable.

As has already been said it is likely to be a blown capacitor, it is quite a common thing to happen to modern TVs. However it could be that for the 16 months you've had the TV it has been turned on for 18 hours a day and is already at the end of it's lifespan due to extreme usage, TVs do only have a certain amount of viewing hours for a lifespan and someone who has it on all day will get to the end of that lifespan a lot sooner than someone who watches an hour or two one or two evenings a week. Right now there is no way to know which of the two scenarios is more likely.

I can't remember if it has been mentioned yet and can't scroll back easily on my phone but have you tried contacting Samsung at all? They may offer a longer warranty on your model, they do 1,2,3 and 5 year warranties depending on model and where it was bought. You may well save yourself a lot of hassle going through them.

doire_2

OK everyone thanks for the advice.

Ive had a phone call from the TV engineer and he examined it and said the main board has developed a fault and stopped working.
It will cost £90 to fix. He also said this shouldn't happen to a TV of such a young age. It would only happen if liquid was poured down into the TV and this hasnt happened in my case.

With this no information do you think I have a case with the seller? He's told me that this will probably drag on but I just get the feeling he wants to get the £90.

So what do you guys think? Main board has failed so is the seller to pay for the repair?
Thanks

naedanger

doire wrote: »

OK everyone thanks for the advice.

Ive had a phone call from the TV engineer and he examined it and said the main board has developed a fault and stopped working.
It will cost £90 to fix. He also said this shouldn't happen to a TV of such a young age. It would only happen if liquid was poured down into the TV and this hasnt happened in my case.

With this no information do you think I have a case with the seller? He's told me that this will probably drag on but I just get the feeling he wants to get the £90.

So what do you guys think? Main board has failed so is the seller to pay for the repair?

Is it you or the repair man who said that liquid was not poured into the tv? If your repair man has not excluded (at least on the balance of probability) that it was damaged by liquid then you do not have a report that really gives your case much support.

Assuming he has ruled out liquid damage:

Did he say how much more he would charge to write up the report?

If it is nothing or near nothing ask for the report and send it to the retailer giving them a limited time to respond (3 or 4 days is probably a minimum) asking them "if they will now repair (or pay for £90 so I can arrange repair) or, as the case may be, replace the tv within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the me". Say what you can to support the view you are being inconvenienced.

Then see what they say.