Panasonic TV Repair Out of Warranty

Corvinus

@Fosterdog – Thank you for taking the time to look at my post and respond.

I understand that they need an engineer to investigate the fault. However, I have now been shoved from the retailer to the manufacturer who confirmed that SOGA does not apply to them.

The manufacturer is saying that they need a report and will then decide if they will pay for any repairs or not but will in any case not refund the cost of the report.

Therefore my view is that as SOGA does not apply to the manufacturer, I need to go back to the retailer and insist that they deal with this which includes paying for any engineers’ report they require.

If they refuse to pay for the report, I would then need to first pay for one personally before sending this back to the retailer and demanding the repair and refund of the report.

Does that sound right or am I missing something?

wealdroam

Corvinus wrote: »

I understand that they need an engineer to investigate the fault. However, I have now been shoved from the retailer to the manufacturer who confirmed that SOGA does not apply to them.

The manufacturer is saying that they need a report and will then decide if they will pay for any repairs or not but will in any case not refund the cost of the report.

Therefore my view is that as SOGA does not apply to the manufacturer, I need to go back to the retailer and insist that they deal with this which includes paying for any engineers’ report they require.

If they refuse to pay for the report, I would then need to first pay for one personally before sending this back to the retailer and demanding the repair and refund of the report.

Does that sound right or am I missing something?

Yes, that seems about right.

deanos

naedanger wrote: »

the tv was nearly new

How do you know ?

Might be a few years old and was taken in and repaired and refurbished.

Is there a date of manufacturer on the TV ? Panasonics have a service menu and you can see how long the tv has been on for

naedanger

Corvinus wrote: »

I understand that they need an engineer to investigate the fault. However, I have now been shoved from the retailer to the manufacturer who confirmed that SOGA does not apply to them.

The manufacturer is correct, your contract is with the retailer so it is the retailer who is liable to you for any inherent faults.

The manufacturer is saying that they need a report and will then decide if they will pay for any repairs or not but will in any case not refund the cost of the report.

Therefore my view is that as SOGA does not apply to the manufacturer, ...

Completely agree. Forget about looking to the manufacturer for a remedy as they are not being helpful and are not obliged to help you.

I need to go back to the retailer and insist that they deal with this ...

agree

which includes paying for any engineers’ report they require.

If they dispute the fault is inherent then you are best getting an engineer's report. Ideally agree an engineer. However if you cannot agree get your own report (e.g. I would not agree to use Panasonic's engineers if that is what the retailer suggests). You need to pay, and claim the cost back if you win. However only commission a report if the retailer disputes the fault was inherent, otherwise they may say there was no need for you to have commissioned a report.

If they refuse to pay for the report, I would then need to first pay for one personally before sending this back to the retailer and demanding the repair and refund of the report.

Yes. Provided they dispute the fault was inherent.

Does that sound right or am I missing something?

Sounds right to me. How did you originally pay. If it was by credit card payment then you may have another option.

naedanger

deanos wrote: »

How do you know ?

I don't. It was an example of what the op might give as a reason, if true, which is why I said "e.g.".

powerful_Rogue

Corvinus wrote: »

@Fosterdog – Thank you for taking the time to look at my post and respond.

I understand that they need an engineer to investigate the fault. However, I have now been shoved from the retailer to the manufacturer who confirmed that SOGA does not apply to them.

The manufacturer is saying that they need a report and will then decide if they will pay for any repairs or not but will in any case not refund the cost of the report.

Therefore my view is that as SOGA does not apply to the manufacturer, I need to go back to the retailer and insist that they deal with this which includes paying for any engineers’ report they require.

If they refuse to pay for the report, I would then need to first pay for one personally before sending this back to the retailer and demanding the repair and refund of the report.

Does that sound right or am I missing something?

Forget the manufacturer. Your SOGA issue is with the retailer and only the retailer.

If the report says the TV has failed due to an inherent fault, then yes, go back to the retailer.

Don't go demanding. If the retailer does not deal with repairs as they have already stated, then they can either replace or refund. Remember the choice is theres. If they decide to refund, they can deduct a percentage for the 20 months use you have already had from the TV.

They will however have to refund the cost of the report if the fault is an inherent one.

If its not an inherent fault, then that's it im afraid.

neilmcl

Corvinus wrote: »

Therefore my view is that as SOGA does not apply to the manufacturer, I need to go back to the retailer and insist that they deal with this which includes paying for any engineers’ report they require.

If they refuse to pay for the report, I would then need to first pay for one personally before sending this back to the retailer and demanding the repair and refund of the report.

Does that sound right or am I missing something?

You can't insist the seller pays for the report, it's your responsibility to get and pay for it. If it proves in your favour it's then you can seek a remedy from the seller as well as the cost of the report.

Corvinus

Thank you so much for all your responses which are all very useful.

@Naedanger – Stupidly I paid for the TV through Paypal using my credit card because at the time I didn’t realise it killed my section 75 rights so unfortunately that route is closed.

However, from what everyone has said, I will go back to the retailer pressing the issue and see how they respond. I will obviously come back here and let you all know what progress, if any, is made.

Corvinus

Hello All, just thought I’d give you the latest update on my TV saga.

I called a number of engineers and explained my problem and all of them stated categorically that they could not (or would not) be able to say that the TV had an inherent fault. The general consensus was that ‘you’ve had bad luck it happens’.

Having done quite a bit of googling about the problem and speaking at length with a local engineer we suspected that the problem was actually quite simple and the cost to repair was estimated at around £120. In addition, the engineer mentioned that as they are an official Panasonic repair centre they would assess the problem and approach Panasonic to see if they would contribute towards the repair costs.

I have now heard back from the engineer that the problem isn’t simple at all. In a nutshell the screen has completely died and needs to be replaced however Panasonic doesn’t have any spare screens so a repair is impossible.

The engineers have contacted Panasonic about the problem and in turn they have offered to replace the TV with a new model for a fee of £240.

This is a newer TV of the same size and is 4k which my TV isn’t. However, the TV offered is the lowest entry level TV Panasonic produces and is actually a discontinued model from last year which has already been superseded.

To be honest I think this is a lousy offer.

The TV I purchased was a range topper and I am now being offered an entry level, discontinued model as a replacement and I have to pay £240 for the privilege.

I’d rather just have a partial refund so I can buy TV from a different manufacturer.

As I can’t get an engineer to confirm that the TV had an inherent fault, I think that I have come to the end of the line of what I can do and I am now faced with the choice of accept their offer or buy another TV.

Unless any of you have any further suggestions?

naedanger

Corvinus wrote: »

I called a number of engineers and explained my problem and all of them stated categorically that they could not (or would not) be able to say that the TV had an inherent fault. The general consensus was that ‘you’ve had bad luck it happens’.

Did you make clear you only required their opinion on whether or not the problem was more likely than not due to an inherent fault? You do not require them to say for certain the cause. Even if you could get them to state that in their view the fault was unlikely to have been caused by any misuse by the owner then that would probably be sufficient to win in court, in my view, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The legal requirement is to prove your case on the balance of probability. Lack of sufficient durability is seen as an inherent fault. And courts will recognise that it is not possible for an engineer to say with certainty whether a fault was caused by an inherent fault.

However in my view a tv is likely to be one of the easier items to convince a court (on the balance of probability) was inherently faulty. It's operation is simple, requires no maintenance and it is difficult to see how it could be overused - unlike for example a washing machine which could be overloaded. If it breaks without evidence of physical damage (impact damage/water damage) then the most likely cause in my view is that it was not sufficiently durable - i.e. inherently faulty.

(Personally I would probably risk a court fee if the report diagnosed the problem and the problem did not appear consistent with any physical damage. Your own testimony that you did not misuse the item is also evidence - although it may not be given much weight given your interest in the case's outcome.)

PS Remember your complaint is with the retailer not the manufacturer.