Amazon: TV failing after 3 years is reasonable!

lincroft1710

neilmcl wrote: »

An engineer's report is likely no more than £50 and which would be refundable if it went in your favour.

But if it doesn't go in his favour it's £50 wasted!

neilmcl

Nothing ventured and all that.

Even if the OP decided to get it repaired themselves it would still cost him that amount for the initial diagnosis, or are you suggesting he just bins it.

lincroft1710

Depending on what a replacement cost, it may not be worth pursuing this. As I said in a previous post, 3 yrs life is not unusual for a flat screen. A repair may be more costly than the TV's current value. I had one go at about 3 or 4 yrs old and was advised by a relative who is au fait with flat screens that it was not worth repairing even if it could be repaired.

The other point to make is that OP has not been happy about the advice given on here. If he obtains a report which says no inherent fault, we will have one doubly unhappy (and poorer) OP on our hands!

parkrunner

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Depending on what a replacement cost, it may not be worth pursuing this. As I said in a previous post, 3 yrs life is not unusual for a flat screen. A repair may be more costly than the TV's current value. I had one go at about 3 or 4 yrs old and was advised by a relative who is au fait with flat screens that it was not worth repairing even if it could be repaired.

The other point to make is that OP has not been happy about the advice given on here. If he obtains a report which says no inherent fault, we will have one doubly unhappy (and poorer) OP on our hands!

Precisely. The TV after three years isn't going to have much replacement value even working well so I think OP is on a hiding to nothing.

neilmcl

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Depending on what a replacement cost, it may not be worth pursuing this. As I said in a previous post, 3 yrs life is not unusual for a flat screen. A repair may be more costly than the TV's current value. I had one go at about 3 or 4 yrs old and was advised by a relative who is au fait with flat screens that it was not worth repairing even if it could be repaired.

The other point to make is that OP has not been happy about the advice given on here. If he obtains a report which says no inherent fault, we will have one doubly unhappy (and poorer) OP on our hands!

All depends on the fault and he's not going to find out unless he pays for a diagnosis. The only thing that tends to make an LCD TV uneconomical to repair is the screen, or if it's really old and components are hard to come by, most faults tend to be PSU related which are relatively less expensive to fix.

You also have to take into account the cost to replace rather than just the cost of your current TV. Yes the repair cost for a 3 year old TV might seem expensive but if it's much less than buying a new TV and if it'll give another 3+ years of usage for a TV you're already happy with then it may well be worth it. Finally for the record I don't agree that 3 years is a reasonable life time for a half decent LCD TV.

[Deleted User]

neilmcl wrote: »

for the record I don't agree that 3 years is a reasonable life time for a half decent LCD TV.

I agree up to a point, but the OP only mentions that the brand is Sony, with no indication of whether it's a Supermarket cheapie or High end. Obviously the latter should reasonably be expected to last longer than the former!