Whats the deal please?

sjh1974

So let's say you notice that after 1 1/2 years your £1500 television is fading, ghosting, not functioning like it should be but its now out of warranty. You contact a very well known manufacturer and explain that the same problem is being reported many times on social media but said well known company denies its anything to do with their product (for obvious reasons) but says they'll repair your tv for £200, (which to me is an arguable admission of guilt). 

So you pay your £200 and have tv collected and it takes 2 months but the courier arrives with your repaired tv and you take it out the box and its wrecked! Smashed in transit. 
So you contact the manufacturer and explain, thanks for the repair but its now in a worst condition than it was when I sent it off to be repaired. The manufacturer agrees to replace your Tv which of course is damn nice of them but they refuse to give you back your £200 repair fee when you argue that you never got value for service. 

Now, I'm not ungrateful, don't get me wrong but.....
a) I paid for a service I didn't benefit from, in fact, I paid for the Tv to be written off basically &
b) Its not my issue the courier smashed (dropped maybe) the Tv

My thoughts are that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to replace the item like for like (which a) is their policy and b), what they actually did - good on em)
However, have they not breached consumer rights by refusing a refund of the repair costs when I never actually benefitted from the service on the original Tv? 
or is my replacement Tv the benefit and so negates the (not getting a repaired Tv back) bit?

After all if the Tv hadn't been smashed they would have just repaired the tv again free of charge anyway. But they have to replace it because they (or rather a company working on their behalf) wrote it off. Is that not a separate matter from the repair of the old Tv? 

Your thoughts

P.S and I am grateful that I'm getting a newer, better Tv than I had before. I think I'm just a little annoyed that said very well known electronics company denied selling faulty technology in the first place. In other words, if I buy a £1500 Tv, I expect it to last longer than a couple of years before the picture goes. 

[Deleted User]

sjh1974 said:

says they'll repair your tv for £200, (which to me is an arguable admission of guilt). 

That's the absolute opposite of an admission of guilt.

They carried out the repair as promised, so no grounds for a refund. They then replaced the entire TV free of charge when it developed a further fault. 

So there's no breach visible from what you describe. 

screech_78

I think you should be very grateful for what you got.

1. Unless you purchased from the manufacturer directly, your consumer rights lie with the retailer. 

2. If you had went to the retailer to provide a remedy under the CRA and they accepted your claim, they can choose to repair, replace or refund minus the use you’ve had from the TV. So any refund would almost certainly resulted in you losing more than £200.

Let it go. 

molerat

You sent them a faulty TV and £200 to get a working TV returned to you, exactly what happened albeit with an extra step.

mattyprice4004

You paid £200 to have a working TV. You now have a working TV. 

If you’d have paid £0 you wouldn’t have a working TV, but now suddenly you want to pay £0 and have a working TV?

C’mon, do the maths  

user1977

So your complaint is that rather than paying £200 and expecting to get a repaired, second-hand tv, you've paid £200 and have ended up with something even better than that? No, you're not entitled to anything more.

cx6

An annoying experience - TVs should not fail after 18 months.

Maybe one way of looking at it is if you had contacted the manufacturer and they had said at the onset they would replace your 18 month TV free of charge with a new one, but would ask a contribution of £200 for the 18 months use you have had would you have been happy with that?