50% partial refund on a Unrepairable £950 TV after just 25 months.

neilmcl

MataNui wrote: »

Plasmas never had a particularly long life. They use loads of energy and run as hot as a small heater. When electronic components run hot they never last long. 50% seems a little low for 2 years though

Again, sounds like you have little or no experience with plasma TVs.

I know people who own plasma TVs that are older than 10 years and are still in excellent condition, my own is 6 years and going strong and picture quality is as good (if not better) than most LCDs around today. The "loads of energy" you mention is still less than the old CRTs (remember them) and they would last for decades.

Sure you get what you pay for, regardless of tech, but I'd expect a £950 TV to last a lot longer than 4 years.

Keep_pedalling

There does not seem to be any rules or guidance a supplier has to apply in these cases. Personally I would expect something like 20% pa to be resonable and you have been offered less than that so I would definitely push for more than you have currently been offered.

The type of technology and second hand values does not come into this.

shaun_from_Africa

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The type of technology and second hand values does not come into this.

Why not?
If there is a choice of two different technologies and an item built with one generally lasts longer than the other, why wouldn't you expect a partial refund to reflect how long the item has actually lasted compared to its expected life?

worried_jim

Make sure you buy your next tv from Richer sounds (as they are brilliant) as it will come with a 6 year guarantee.

http://www.richersounds.com/

Keep_pedalling

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why not?
If there is a choice of two different technologies and an item built with one generally lasts longer than the other, why wouldn't you expect a partial refund to reflect how long the item has actually lasted compared to its expected life?

But that is not the case, any TV should last way beyond 2 years, and plasma TVs are not more likely to fail than an LCD one.

unholyangel

The-Truth wrote: »

They bought a TV no one makes anymore because they're known for not lasting not because it's a collectors antique!

Actually the reason they're not made anymore is because plasma factories can only make big screens. Where LCD ones can make screens of any size - including for mobile phones.

It was more economical for companies to have LCD factories. As a result, more money was being pumped into improving LCDs which left those few companies who produced plasmas to fight a losing battle.

While the first plasma models did have a poor life span and image burn issues, as with any technology, improvements were made and the lifespan of a plasma would be no different to an LCD.

neilmcl

unholyangel wrote: »

as with any technology, improvements were made and the lifespan of a plasma would be no different to an LCD.

Actually, it might surprise a lot of people that plasma panels are rated to last longer than LCD panels, generally 100,000 hrs as compared wit 30,000 to 60,000 for LCD.

worried_jim

neilmcl wrote: »

Actually, it might surprise a lot of people that plasma panels are rated to last longer than LCD panels, generally 100,000 hrs as compared wit 30,000 to 60,000 for LCD.

Good news. Had my 43" plasma for 4 years this month. It's as good as the day I bought it. Very happy for £380 and 3D. As mentioned before the excellent Richer sounds.

shaun_from_Africa

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

But that is not the case, any TV should last way beyond 2 years, and plasma TVs are not more likely to fail than an LCD one.

I agree that a TV should last more than 2 years and Currys seem to think the same. As the set in question failed after just over 2 years and they have offered a 50%, they seem to think that 4 years is about the expected life, which IMO is a bit on the low side.

daytona0

Assuming your SOGA claim was successful (and we are not talking about a goodwill gesture) then I'd expect a bit more money back....

Rule of thumb in the place I worked was 100% - 20% for the first year and then - 10% for each additional year, so somewhere between 65 and 70% would be fairer in this instance.