Richer Sounds 6 year guarantee - TV beyond repair

kestrelskies

Just before Christmas our Samsung TV (bought in May 2019) started randomly rebooting itself. No worries I thought, we have a six year guarantee from richer sounds. Really great service and a technician picked up the TV and took it off a couple of days later.

Richer sounds have just called to let me know that the TV is beyond economical repair and have offered us £210 in vouchers (the TV was purchased for £299). Having looked at our guarantee I was expecting a like for like replacement if a repair wasn’t feasible, but he explained they changed the guarantee last year. 

I found the explanation of the new guarantee online which says they will offer vouchers at 70% of the TVs value because we are in our third year of owning it. I wasn’t quite prepared for having to lay out more money to buy a new TV so I’m a little put out.

My question is, as the new voucher system and % of tv value isn’t mentioned in the guarantee we have (see picture) should I push for a replacement of similar standard television rather than the vouchers which I’ll need to top up by around £120 for done thing similar? I’m lost!

TadleyBaggie

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

MarvinDay

TadleyBaggie said:

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

But that's the thing. A reduction is only to be expected if it forms part of the T&C's of the guarantee which the OP was given when they made their purchase and this isn't the case as already admitted by RS.

Do you think it acceptable or legal for any company to enter into a contract and then change the terms of that contract as and when it suits them?

Manxman_in_exile

I think that's a bit disappointing from Richer Sounds.

If the TV had a "Six year Guarantee" (or whatever it was called) then I think I'd be expecting a like for like replacement - or closest available - if it developed an irreparable fault within those six years.

And if RS have subsequently altered the terms of the guarantee to offer a sliding scale "refund", then I would no longer call it a guarantee.

powerful_Rogue

Do you have a leaflet/email from when you purchased the TV highlighting what the 6 year guarantee offered?

Diamandis

They should offer a like for like replacement if that's the terms of the guarantee when you bought it. If they changed it afterwards that's not relevant. 

TadleyBaggie

I haven't seen anything that shows that RS have changed the T&C, just because the OP had an expectation doesn't mean it was actually true.

kestrelskies

powerful_Rogue said:

Do you have a leaflet/email from when you purchased the TV highlighting what the 6 year guarantee offered?

Yes, sorry, thought it was on my original post. Now added.

kestrelskies

MarvinDay said:

TadleyBaggie said:

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

But that's the thing. A reduction is only to be expected if it forms part of the T&C's of the guarantee which the OP was given when they made their purchase and this isn't the case as already admitted by RS.

Do you think it acceptable or legal for any company to enter into a contract and then change the terms of that contract as and when it suits them?

I’ve now posted the screengrab of our guarantee which does say this;

If the Company or its authorised repairer considers the product covered to be beyond economic repair the Company may at its option replace with equivalent or similar product (which will come from our available stock which may also include refurbished items) or pay to the named person an agreed sum in lieu thereof taking into consideration the usage and age of the product and the current market price of a new replacement product.

powerful_Rogue

kestrelskies said:

MarvinDay said:

TadleyBaggie said:

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

But that's the thing. A reduction is only to be expected if it forms part of the T&C's of the guarantee which the OP was given when they made their purchase and this isn't the case as already admitted by RS.

Do you think it acceptable or legal for any company to enter into a contract and then change the terms of that contract as and when it suits them?

I’ve now posted the screengrab of our guarantee which does say this;

If the Company or its authorised repairer considers the product covered to be beyond economic repair the Company may at its option replace with equivalent or similar product (which will come from our available stock which may also include refurbished items) or pay to the named person an agreed sum in lieu thereof taking into consideration the usage and age of the product and the current market price of a new replacement product.

Seems like they have covered themselves with the bit in bold.

Manxman_in_exile

I know others will disagree but if the terms include

kestrelskies said:

MarvinDay said:

TadleyBaggie said:

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

But that's the thing. A reduction is only to be expected if it forms part of the T&C's of the guarantee which the OP was given when they made their purchase and this isn't the case as already admitted by RS.

Do you think it acceptable or legal for any company to enter into a contract and then change the terms of that contract as and when it suits them?

... pay to the named person an agreed sum in lieu thereof taking into consideration the usage and age of the product...

then I would argue it doesn't meet what most people would call a "guarantee".

But it also says

kestrelskies said:

MarvinDay said:

TadleyBaggie said:

Sounds very reasonable to me, reduction for over 2 1/2 years of use is to be expected.

But that's the thing. A reduction is only to be expected if it forms part of the T&C's of the guarantee which the OP was given when they made their purchase and this isn't the case as already admitted by RS.

Do you think it acceptable or legal for any company to enter into a contract and then change the terms of that contract as and when it suits them?

...) or pay to the named person an agreed sum in lieu thereof taking into consideration the usage and age of the product and the current market price of a new replacement product.

so if I were the OP I would argue that I'd be expecting the price of a like for like TV.

(That's assuming a new like for like TV will - as the OP is claiming - cost more than Richer sounds are offering)