Richer Sounds 6 year guarantee - TV beyond repair

kestrelskies

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

I think that’s it for me. Fine that they want to offer me vouchers but I really was expecting either our tv back repaired or a similar product. Not really in the position to fork out an extra £120 quid for the newer version of the one we’ve now lost.

kestrelskies

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

It’s a fair point, but I don’t think they do take the current market price of a replacement product into account in their new guarantee. But I’ll check. If not, that gives me a bit more to go back with!

Manxman_in_exile

kestrelskies said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

It’s a fair point, but I don’t think they do take the current market price of a replacement product into account in their new guarantee. But I’ll check. If not, that gives me a bit more to go back with!

That is the point I would make to them.  If their "6 year Guarantee" (or whatever it's called) is to mean anything, then if your TV packs up after 5 years, they should make sure it's repaired or replaced - or fully refunded.  The amount of use you've had out of it shouldn't make a difference in this context.

When people start new threads on here complaining about the TV they got from Currys or Argos or AO or whoever, they often get replies like "You should have bought form John Lewis - they have a 5 year guarantee", and then "Better still, you could have gone to Richer Sounds - they give you a 6 year guarantee".

Now that all sounds very well when you hear it, but what I hear there is "If your TV breaks down within 6 years we'll sort it all out at no extra cost to you" and NOT "We'll knock some money of your refund to reflect the use you've had of it."

Perhaps you should tell them that too... 

Thrugelmir

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

Tech falls in price as it ages. New version of the TV will be an upgrade in some form. 

Manxman_in_exile

Thrugelmir said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

Tech falls in price as it ages. New version of the TV will be an upgrade in some form. 

That's what I would have thought too - but the OP is claiming that he would need to add another £120 of his own money to get a like for like replacement - if I've not misunderstood them.

If that's true, I think RS should be providing as close a replacement as they can get.  As I explained previously, I don't think any question about charging for 3 years use should be relevant to a 6 year "guarantee".

IvanOpinion

I would think that getting 70% of the value back after 3 years is still quite a good deal (especially for a budget range TV).
Of course they could find some 3 year old refurbished Sumsang [sic] TV that they could provide instead of refunding anything.

SiliconChip

Manxman_

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

It would help if the OP told us the model number of the TV as we could then see if it is still being sold anywhere and at what price, and if not we can determine the specificiation to see what the cost of something similar is now. I suspect that a TV bought new almost 3 years ago would have dropped in price by now, so RS may well be right with what they are offering.

TELLIT01

I think what this thread shows more than anything else is how important it is to read the T&C of a warranty thoroughly.  I'm not criticising the OP as I suspect most of us are guilty of not doing so. 

JJ_Egan

I have a RS six year warranty and am not expecting a new tv if it breaks down in year six .

That would be a route that would lead to no extra warranty especially no free warranty .

IE section 4 of the warranty .

SteveSi

You still have the Consumer Rights Act which gives you a 6 year 'guarantee' against defective goods.
Samsung TVs were famous for using 'bad capacitors' which typically cause power supply issues such as humming/crackling/slow start-up/rebooting/flashing power LED, etc.
After 6 months the onus is on you to prove that the product has an inherent fault. Luckily this is really easy to do for the 'bad capacitor' problem in any electronics product as you can take off the back and look for capacitors with domed or split tops or that are leaking. Google for 'capacitor plague' for more details.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Defekte_Kondensatoren.jpg
Do a Google search for your particular model to see if others have the same problem. Often you will find capacitor repair kits available on eBay for that exact model because it is such a common defect. This proves it is a well known inherent defect.
I have seen products of less than 3 years old with these bad capacitors (radios, central heating controllers, Samsung TV, PC mainboard). It is well known in the electronics world that only a handful of manufacturers make 'good' capacitors (mostly Japanese). The problem is the 'bean counters' in companies insist on using the cheaper Korean/Chinese components and they don't care if they fail after a few years because most people will just buy a new product and it is cheaper for them to settle with the few that take them to court\ombudsman.
The whole thing is a scandal and just adds to global pollution and global warming too.
It may be too late to prove your product had an inherent fault now unless you have or can ask for original photos of the PCBs inside but maybe you can ask them for a fault report and quote the Consumer Rights Act?
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product-aTTEK2g0YuEy#was-a-fault-present-at-purchase
Also if you paid by credit card, see https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/ .
HTH