Faulty TV kept for repairs for more than a month

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I would argue that Argos had their first (and last) attempt at repair when the OP's dad contacted them and they fobbed him off to LG.  (As somebody has already pointed out, if dad had insisted on Argos dealing with it, Argos would only have gone to LG themselves any way, so Argos have not been disadvantaged in any way by dad going to LG.  In any case, it was at Argos's suggestion)

FWIW, I think 6 weeks to be without the TV is definitely unreasonable - whether there is a current shortage of electronic components or not.  In fact that's all the more reason to go back to Argos, tell them that dad isn't satisifed with the time it's taking to get a repair done because the parts obviously aren't available, and to insist on a replacement or refund.

Would Argos do that when the TV is with LG being repaired?

(Assuming 6 weeks isn't a reasonable time), comply with their legal obligations without argument? Probably not.... 

You think 6 weeks isn't reasonable, I do. Depends if the judge thinks like you or me. Plus I can't see Argos doing anything when the OP has accepted the repair remedy and has no TV to return to Argos for a refund.

Out of interest how long is reasonable? 

The TV is with the 3rd party Argos told the purchaser to contact. 

If Argos were following the requirements of offering the consumer a repair effectively the TV is in their possession as it’s with their agent they use for repairs. 

Personally as stated in a previous post, for a non essential item 2-3 months in the current climate.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I would argue that Argos had their first (and last) attempt at repair when the OP's dad contacted them and they fobbed him off to LG.  (As somebody has already pointed out, if dad had insisted on Argos dealing with it, Argos would only have gone to LG themselves any way, so Argos have not been disadvantaged in any way by dad going to LG.  In any case, it was at Argos's suggestion)

FWIW, I think 6 weeks to be without the TV is definitely unreasonable - whether there is a current shortage of electronic components or not.  In fact that's all the more reason to go back to Argos, tell them that dad isn't satisifed with the time it's taking to get a repair done because the parts obviously aren't available, and to insist on a replacement or refund.

Would Argos do that when the TV is with LG being repaired?

(Assuming 6 weeks isn't a reasonable time), comply with their legal obligations without argument? Probably not.... 

You think 6 weeks isn't reasonable, I do. Depends if the judge thinks like you or me. Plus I can't see Argos doing anything when the OP has accepted the repair remedy and has no TV to return to Argos for a refund.

Out of interest how long is reasonable? 

The TV is with the 3rd party Argos told the purchaser to contact. 

If Argos were following the requirements of offering the consumer a repair effectively the TV is in their possession as it’s with their agent they use for repairs. 

Personally as stated in a previous post, for a non essential item 2-3 months in the current climate.

Sorry I missed you said that previously

HeinzVarieties

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem is that Argos has mislead your father about his consumer rights.

It doesn’t matter who the so called warranty is with, Argos have the contract and should sort out repairs or contact the manufacturer, as their agent to carry our repairs, on behalf on the customer.

If it has been less than 6 months (not sure what date in June) I’d go back to Argos for a full refund.

The repair time is excessive given the purchaser’s situation.

If it has just ticked over the 6 month mark Argos can impose a reduction. 

OP your father would be exercising his final right to reject as the goods did not conform to the contract and although a repair or replacement was requested the retailer has failed to do so within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience. 

The 6 months will be from the time your father tells Argos he is exercising this right.

They will probably fob you off so it’s best to Google ‘CEO email’ and search that site for Argos and Sainsburys (who own Argos) and cc both those in as well as customer service. 

I’m on my phone so can’t quote the relevant bits but the final right to reject is detailed at the link.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

What about the OP's father's situation makes this unreasonable vs anyone else?  A TV is of equal value to everyone (i.e. purely entertainment and thus not very important)

Why should they refund over anyone else?

A reasonable time should surely take into account the current market conditions as well as the consumers needs, right?

Or is this one of these endless arguments where you don't think about things reasonably and draw everyone into another endless argument?

Whilst market conditions may be of consideration the legislation has been written to allow the consumer seek an alternative remedy when the repair or replacement can not be performed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. 

I don't think 6 weeks is reasonable, particularly having been told the repair would take 2-3 days, your opinion may different and neither of our opinions matter really as ultimately what is reasonable would be decided on the balance of probability via the small claims process (which to be fair would most likely take longer than the repair). 

That doesn't prevent the purchaser from approaching the retailer to express their opinion of the time being unreasonable and request an alternative remedy. 

The situation isn't one of age or ability, simply that the purchaser has replaced the goods themselves implying the wait has been inconvenient enough for them to go such expense (again in their opinion).  

So if market considerations are a consideration then they need to be taken into account.  Is it unreasonable during a global pandemic, with massive chip shortages, to take longer to fix a TV than normal?  I'd argue yes, it is reasonable to do so.

I don't see that it's going to be particularly helpful for the OP's friend to exercise their consumer rights here when

a) it's possible a judge will see any delay under current conditions to be "reasonable"
b) it'll take longer than they're reasonably going to take to fix it for the case to be seen by a judge anyway.

If, on the very rare chance, they take the best part of a year to fix it, going to court might help, but in any realistic scenario, it's not going to help at all and will cost the OP's friend more than letting them get on with it.

Ergates

Given that none of us here appear to be TV repair engineers, so realistically have absolutely *no idea* what is and isn't involved in fixing a TV, I suggest than any detailed arguments about what is or isn't a reasonable time frame are largely futile.  

HeinzVarieties

Ergates said:

Given that none of us here appear to be TV repair engineers, so realistically have absolutely *no idea* what is and isn't involved in fixing a TV, I suggest than any detailed arguments about what is or isn't a reasonable time frame are largely futile.  

Of course they are, but that doesn't stop the usual crowd spouting the law, and nothing else, without any context.

Perhaps the lunatic could stop with their incessant "this is the law" nonsense and offer practical advice, but I suspect they won't and I'll be back to another account tomorrow for "not being nice."

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem is that Argos has mislead your father about his consumer rights.

It doesn’t matter who the so called warranty is with, Argos have the contract and should sort out repairs or contact the manufacturer, as their agent to carry our repairs, on behalf on the customer.

If it has been less than 6 months (not sure what date in June) I’d go back to Argos for a full refund.

The repair time is excessive given the purchaser’s situation.

If it has just ticked over the 6 month mark Argos can impose a reduction. 

OP your father would be exercising his final right to reject as the goods did not conform to the contract and although a repair or replacement was requested the retailer has failed to do so within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience. 

The 6 months will be from the time your father tells Argos he is exercising this right.

They will probably fob you off so it’s best to Google ‘CEO email’ and search that site for Argos and Sainsburys (who own Argos) and cc both those in as well as customer service. 

I’m on my phone so can’t quote the relevant bits but the final right to reject is detailed at the link.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

What about the OP's father's situation makes this unreasonable vs anyone else?  A TV is of equal value to everyone (i.e. purely entertainment and thus not very important)

Why should they refund over anyone else?

A reasonable time should surely take into account the current market conditions as well as the consumers needs, right?

Or is this one of these endless arguments where you don't think about things reasonably and draw everyone into another endless argument?

Whilst market conditions may be of consideration the legislation has been written to allow the consumer seek an alternative remedy when the repair or replacement can not be performed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. 

I don't think 6 weeks is reasonable, particularly having been told the repair would take 2-3 days, your opinion may different and neither of our opinions matter really as ultimately what is reasonable would be decided on the balance of probability via the small claims process (which to be fair would most likely take longer than the repair). 

That doesn't prevent the purchaser from approaching the retailer to express their opinion of the time being unreasonable and request an alternative remedy. 

The situation isn't one of age or ability, simply that the purchaser has replaced the goods themselves implying the wait has been inconvenient enough for them to go such expense (again in their opinion).  

So if market considerations are a consideration then they need to be taken into account.  Is it unreasonable during a global pandemic, with massive chip shortages, to take longer to fix a TV than normal?  I'd argue yes, it is reasonable to do so.

I don't see that it's going to be particularly helpful for the OP's friend to exercise their consumer rights here when

a) it's possible a judge will see any delay under current conditions to be "reasonable"
b) it'll take longer than they're reasonably going to take to fix it for the case to be seen by a judge anyway.

If, on the very rare chance, they take the best part of a year to fix it, going to court might help, but in any realistic scenario, it's not going to help at all and will cost the OP's friend more than letting them get on with it.

I replied yesterday to say our opinions on "reasonable" don't count for much and also noted that going down the small claims route will likely take longer than any repair.

But can we go back to the OP for just a minute and highlight the part where LG said it would take 2-3 days.

Has this chip shortage and global pandemic popped up in the last 6 weeks? 

Is it beyond the scope of imagination that a global company like LG could have a system that advises what parts they actually have in stock and to tell the customer they are short on parts for the TV and the repair may take 6 weeks plus? Or even to just advise the customer due to current market conditions repairs can take a long time?

I fail to see why it's accepted that someone is told their repair will take a couple of days and the company then sticks their goods in a corner for weeks on end waiting for parts.

Is it reasonable for national companies to mislead people about their rights and fob them off to the manufacturer in an attempt to absolve themselves of their responsibilities leaving the customer to deal with a company who can quote warranty terms when the they complain and leaving a grey area on failed repairs and the right to reject? 

If Argos had complied with their obligation to provide a remedy the purchaser would have a clearer line of events and be a better position to exercise their rights. If LG had been honest from the start about extended repair times the OP may have purchased his father a replacement TV straight away so he didn't have to be without one for so long. 

These companies work on the basis that people don't know their rights and will accept what they are told, people who have a bit of knowledge and push back with the relevant legislation are more likely to see a result. I would rather tell people looking for help this is what covers your situation in the chance they get a resolve than say tough luck, suck it up.

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If Argos had complied with their obligation to provide a remedy the purchaser would have a clearer line of events and be a better position to exercise their rights. If LG had been honest from the start about extended repair times the OP may have purchased his father a replacement TV straight away so he didn't have to be without one for so long. 

As the issue happened after 30 days & before 6 months then you have to give the retailer an opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund.
So in effect Argos have help speed up the repair (if they took it, who knows how long it might be before going to LG)

So at the moment the issue is with LG who should at least be offering some form of alternative to the outstanding delayed repair.

LaHostessAvecLaMostess

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem is that Argos has mislead your father about his consumer rights.

It doesn’t matter who the so called warranty is with, Argos have the contract and should sort out repairs or contact the manufacturer, as their agent to carry our repairs, on behalf on the customer.

If it has been less than 6 months (not sure what date in June) I’d go back to Argos for a full refund.

The repair time is excessive given the purchaser’s situation.

If it has just ticked over the 6 month mark Argos can impose a reduction. 

OP your father would be exercising his final right to reject as the goods did not conform to the contract and although a repair or replacement was requested the retailer has failed to do so within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience. 

The 6 months will be from the time your father tells Argos he is exercising this right.

They will probably fob you off so it’s best to Google ‘CEO email’ and search that site for Argos and Sainsburys (who own Argos) and cc both those in as well as customer service. 

I’m on my phone so can’t quote the relevant bits but the final right to reject is detailed at the link.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

What about the OP's father's situation makes this unreasonable vs anyone else?  A TV is of equal value to everyone (i.e. purely entertainment and thus not very important)

Why should they refund over anyone else?

A reasonable time should surely take into account the current market conditions as well as the consumers needs, right?

Or is this one of these endless arguments where you don't think about things reasonably and draw everyone into another endless argument?

Whilst market conditions may be of consideration the legislation has been written to allow the consumer seek an alternative remedy when the repair or replacement can not be performed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. 

I don't think 6 weeks is reasonable, particularly having been told the repair would take 2-3 days, your opinion may different and neither of our opinions matter really as ultimately what is reasonable would be decided on the balance of probability via the small claims process (which to be fair would most likely take longer than the repair). 

That doesn't prevent the purchaser from approaching the retailer to express their opinion of the time being unreasonable and request an alternative remedy. 

The situation isn't one of age or ability, simply that the purchaser has replaced the goods themselves implying the wait has been inconvenient enough for them to go such expense (again in their opinion).  

So if market considerations are a consideration then they need to be taken into account.  Is it unreasonable during a global pandemic, with massive chip shortages, to take longer to fix a TV than normal?  I'd argue yes, it is reasonable to do so.

I don't see that it's going to be particularly helpful for the OP's friend to exercise their consumer rights here when

a) it's possible a judge will see any delay under current conditions to be "reasonable"
b) it'll take longer than they're reasonably going to take to fix it for the case to be seen by a judge anyway.

If, on the very rare chance, they take the best part of a year to fix it, going to court might help, but in any realistic scenario, it's not going to help at all and will cost the OP's friend more than letting them get on with it.

I replied yesterday to say our opinions on "reasonable" don't count for much and also noted that going down the small claims route will likely take longer than any repair.

But can we go back to the OP for just a minute and highlight the part where LG said it would take 2-3 days.

Has this chip shortage and global pandemic popped up in the last 6 weeks? 

Is it beyond the scope of imagination that a global company like LG could have a system that advises what parts they actually have in stock and to tell the customer they are short on parts for the TV and the repair may take 6 weeks plus? Or even to just advise the customer due to current market conditions repairs can take a long time?

I fail to see why it's accepted that someone is told their repair will take a couple of days and the company then sticks their goods in a corner for weeks on end waiting for parts.

Is it reasonable for national companies to mislead people about their rights and fob them off to the manufacturer in an attempt to absolve themselves of their responsibilities leaving the customer to deal with a company who can quote warranty terms when the they complain and leaving a grey area on failed repairs and the right to reject? 

If Argos had complied with their obligation to provide a remedy the purchaser would have a clearer line of events and be a better position to exercise their rights. If LG had been honest from the start about extended repair times the OP may have purchased his father a replacement TV straight away so he didn't have to be without one for so long. 

These companies work on the basis that people don't know their rights and will accept what they are told, people who have a bit of knowledge and push back with the relevant legislation are more likely to see a result. I would rather tell people looking for help this is what covers your situation in the chance they get a resolve than say tough luck, suck it up.

What difference would that make when you're telling people "it's not reasonable for the repair to take that long"? Do repair terms suddenly become more reasonable if the customer is told they'll take longer than they're expecting?  Perhaps LG could say the repair will take a million years and that's fine and dandy because at least they were told how long it'll take.

But LG is not the OP's contact anyway, they've taken it to the retailer, Argos, so what LG say is irrelevant.

But none of that addresses the core point that the law that you have a habit of spouting, verbatim, says the repair has to be done in a reasonable amount of time, which it is under current circumstances.

RogerBareford

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

HeinzVarieties said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The problem is that Argos has mislead your father about his consumer rights.

It doesn’t matter who the so called warranty is with, Argos have the contract and should sort out repairs or contact the manufacturer, as their agent to carry our repairs, on behalf on the customer.

If it has been less than 6 months (not sure what date in June) I’d go back to Argos for a full refund.

The repair time is excessive given the purchaser’s situation.

If it has just ticked over the 6 month mark Argos can impose a reduction. 

OP your father would be exercising his final right to reject as the goods did not conform to the contract and although a repair or replacement was requested the retailer has failed to do so within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience. 

The 6 months will be from the time your father tells Argos he is exercising this right.

They will probably fob you off so it’s best to Google ‘CEO email’ and search that site for Argos and Sainsburys (who own Argos) and cc both those in as well as customer service. 

I’m on my phone so can’t quote the relevant bits but the final right to reject is detailed at the link.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

What about the OP's father's situation makes this unreasonable vs anyone else?  A TV is of equal value to everyone (i.e. purely entertainment and thus not very important)

Why should they refund over anyone else?

A reasonable time should surely take into account the current market conditions as well as the consumers needs, right?

Or is this one of these endless arguments where you don't think about things reasonably and draw everyone into another endless argument?

Whilst market conditions may be of consideration the legislation has been written to allow the consumer seek an alternative remedy when the repair or replacement can not be performed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. 

I don't think 6 weeks is reasonable, particularly having been told the repair would take 2-3 days, your opinion may different and neither of our opinions matter really as ultimately what is reasonable would be decided on the balance of probability via the small claims process (which to be fair would most likely take longer than the repair). 

That doesn't prevent the purchaser from approaching the retailer to express their opinion of the time being unreasonable and request an alternative remedy. 

The situation isn't one of age or ability, simply that the purchaser has replaced the goods themselves implying the wait has been inconvenient enough for them to go such expense (again in their opinion).  

So if market considerations are a consideration then they need to be taken into account.  Is it unreasonable during a global pandemic, with massive chip shortages, to take longer to fix a TV than normal?  I'd argue yes, it is reasonable to do so.

I don't see that it's going to be particularly helpful for the OP's friend to exercise their consumer rights here when

a) it's possible a judge will see any delay under current conditions to be "reasonable"
b) it'll take longer than they're reasonably going to take to fix it for the case to be seen by a judge anyway.

If, on the very rare chance, they take the best part of a year to fix it, going to court might help, but in any realistic scenario, it's not going to help at all and will cost the OP's friend more than letting them get on with it.

I replied yesterday to say our opinions on "reasonable" don't count for much and also noted that going down the small claims route will likely take longer than any repair.

But can we go back to the OP for just a minute and highlight the part where LG said it would take 2-3 days.

Has this chip shortage and global pandemic popped up in the last 6 weeks? 

Is it beyond the scope of imagination that a global company like LG could have a system that advises what parts they actually have in stock and to tell the customer they are short on parts for the TV and the repair may take 6 weeks plus? Or even to just advise the customer due to current market conditions repairs can take a long time?

I fail to see why it's accepted that someone is told their repair will take a couple of days and the company then sticks their goods in a corner for weeks on end waiting for parts.

Is it reasonable for national companies to mislead people about their rights and fob them off to the manufacturer in an attempt to absolve themselves of their responsibilities leaving the customer to deal with a company who can quote warranty terms when the they complain and leaving a grey area on failed repairs and the right to reject? 

If Argos had complied with their obligation to provide a remedy the purchaser would have a clearer line of events and be a better position to exercise their rights. If LG had been honest from the start about extended repair times the OP may have purchased his father a replacement TV straight away so he didn't have to be without one for so long. 

These companies work on the basis that people don't know their rights and will accept what they are told, people who have a bit of knowledge and push back with the relevant legislation are more likely to see a result. I would rather tell people looking for help this is what covers your situation in the chance they get a resolve than say tough luck, suck it up.

I think you have missed the part in the OP where they said that it would be 2-3 days to replace the screen but when they actually had it and looked at it they found there were 2 other components that needed replacing that they are now waiting on. So it wasn't LG lying they just gave that estimate based on it just being the screen that required replacing.

But personally, if an elderly relative of mine had a TV that broke and had no spare one i would be letting them borrow one from my spare room right away before the engineer even came to visit. I certainly wouldn't be letting them be 6 weeks without a TV before even considering this!.

sheramber

RogerBareford said:

I think you have missed the part in the OP where they said that it would be 2-3 days to replace the screen but when they actually had it and looked at it they found there were 2 other components that needed replacing that they are now waiting on. So it wasn't LG lying they just gave that estimate based on it just being the screen that required replacing.

But personally, if an elderly relative of mine had a TV that broke and had no spare one i would be letting them borrow one from my spare room right away before the engineer even came to visit. I certainly wouldn't be letting them be 6 weeks without a TV before even considering this!.

Not everybody has a tv in their spare room.

But did you miss  I have already sorted him out with a second hand temporary replacement ?