TV failure after 3 years

NottinghamKnight

Evening all,
Our Toshiba telly stopped working last weekend contacted Tesco and they have responded after submitting receipt, photos and video saying that they will refund £46 from the £200 paid, it is just over 3 years old. I responded to say that I thought it might be worth a bit more (suggested £80-£90) and they basically said take it or leave it. I don't think I have much alternative but to take what's offered but wondered what others thought.

Aylesbury_Duck

It's nice to hear that Tesco are acting after three years, many people struggle to get a response from retailers after that time.

Doesn't seem to bad to me.  Would you pay more than £46 for a three year old TV that cost £200 originally?  I wouldn't. 

washingclip5

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It's nice to hear that Tesco are acting after three years, many people struggle to get a response from retailers after that time.

Doesn't seem to bad to me.  Would you pay more than £46 for a three year old TV that cost £200 originally?  I wouldn't. 

I am also of the opinion that is extremely generous. 

NottinghamKnight

Fair enough, money is better in my pocket than Tesco's in my opinion. My logic is that 6 years is a reasonable lifespan and so just under half of the value could be returned, as I noted to them the current TV we are watching is 14 years old, the one the broken TV replaced was 9 or 10, so 3 and a bit seems pretty poor. 
P.S. I wouldn't pay £46 for that 3 year old TV as it isn't working. 

washingclip5

NottinghamKnight said:

Fair enough, money is better in my pocket than Tesco's in my opinion. My logic is that 6 years is a reasonable lifespan and so just under half of the value could be returned, as I noted to them the current TV we are watching is 14 years old, the one the broken TV replaced was 9 or 10, so 3 and a bit seems pretty poor. 
P.S. I wouldn't pay £46 for that 3 year old TV as it isn't working. 

I don’t disagree with your logic. And I would certainly expect the television to last longer than three years and I also would not pay £46 for a three-year-old television that doesn’t work 

but I think this is the best outcome of a potentially not so great situation as they could’ve just said no sorry. 

It will also save the hassle of proving what the fault is, engineers reports and et cetera

jonesMUFCforever

To be honest I would not pay £46 for a 3 year old telly that was working.
If you paid by credit card and are willing to pay for a report stating the fault was inherent when you bought it you might succeed with a claim. If you won you could add the cost of the report to your claim.

Grumpy_chap

The OP does not say what size the TV is, but at £200 it is towards the "budget" end.  £46 back after three years seems good.

If I wanted to buy a second-hand TV, our local charity shop always has a stock of TVs, usually Panasonic or Sony, and they are always priced at £25, irrespective of size etc.

Manxman_in_exile

NottinghamKnight said:

Fair enough, money is better in my pocket than Tesco's in my opinion. My logic is that 6 years is a reasonable lifespan and so just under half of the value could be returned, as I noted to them the current TV we are watching is 14 years old, the one the broken TV replaced was 9 or 10, so 3 and a bit seems pretty poor. 
P.S. I wouldn't pay £46 for that 3 year old TV as it isn't working. 

The flaw in your logic is you assume the TV will depreciate in a straight line - it wont.  After three years it's probably worth 25% of it's purchase price.  That's why I (like other previous posters) wouldn't pay more than about £50 for a three year old telly that originally cost £200.

The other way of looking at it is swings and roundabouts.  You have a current TV that is 14 years old and the one you are complaining about replaced a 9 or ten year old telly.  Seems to me that on average you've come out ahead.

I'm currently watching Goldfinger on a TV that I think is 11 years old, and on another thread earlier today I said our fridge/freezer is 25 years old.  I dread the day we have to replace them as I'm sure new ones will be nowhere near as durable.

NottinghamKnight

It's all down to interpretation as any contract is. I'll argue what is in my interest and the retailer will argue his angle, the flaw in the arguments above is that I am not looking at purchasing a 3 year old TV, I'm looking at getting a working TV which has had 3 years use which is a different thing.  If we compare it to a car then this would be just outside warranty, so I may well be liable for repair costs but would probably get some or all covered by the manufacturer if I'd stayed inside the manufacturers warranty for servicing, certainly in my experience. The difference is that it would be very odd for a 3 year old car to suffer a fault that would effectively write it off. 
It's all a bit academic as I'm not going to improve the offer without independent evidence which I'd have to pay for and so the risk return ratio isn't favourable. The TV was cheap but is a well known brand and is 32 inch, I know people may be purchasing 50 or 60 inch TVs now but it makes me wonder how may manage to fit that into the average size home, each to their own but high hundreds to low thousands is a lot for a TV, as is hundreds a month on a PCP for a car, suppose that's why I'm on this forum.

JJ_Egan

Three years for a £200 TV just about life expectancy at that price range .

Well known brand means nothing as it could be a multi brand TV all made in Turkey .

coffeehound

Buy from Richer Sounds next time and get a long warranty.

Another factor with depreciation is that the warranty itself forms part of the initial price.  It is like an insurance premium that is included in the sticker price.  Once the warranty has expired, that element of the retail price ceases to have value, so there should be a step reduction in value as the warranty expires