£4000 OLED TV develops serious fault after 18 months - £660 repair.

Alderbank

realdannys said:

eskbanker said:

realdannys said:

Kind regards,

Lewis | LG Shop Team Manager

At least this job title would suggest that they accept that they're a retailer, rather than solely a manufacturer.

I haven't gone back through all the thread but if they're no longer trying to redirect you to DR then 

Also I think this line in his response a bit damning isn't it?

"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, not something we would certainly expect to happen."

Quite the opposite in my opinion.

Now if he had said,
"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, I'm afraid that's something we see all the time, they're all rubbish really."
that would be different.

realdannys

Alderbank said:

realdannys said:

eskbanker said:

realdannys said:

Kind regards,

Lewis | LG Shop Team Manager

At least this job title would suggest that they accept that they're a retailer, rather than solely a manufacturer.

I haven't gone back through all the thread but if they're no longer trying to redirect you to DR then 

Also I think this line in his response a bit damning isn't it?

"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, not something we would certainly expect to happen."

Quite the opposite in my opinion.

Now if he had said,
"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, I'm afraid that's something we see all the time, they're all rubbish really."
that would be different.

No I meant more in regards to my CR claims.

I don't think the panel should have developed a serious fault within the first 18 months and the guy at the shop has stated in writing it is not something they'd expect to happen.

So where I have to prove that an item is fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality, he's just confirmed it isn't as they wouldn't expect it to have developed that fault so soon.

ArbitraryRandom

realdannys said:

Alderbank said:

realdannys said:

eskbanker said:

realdannys said:

Kind regards,

Lewis | LG Shop Team Manager

At least this job title would suggest that they accept that they're a retailer, rather than solely a manufacturer.

I haven't gone back through all the thread but if they're no longer trying to redirect you to DR then 

Also I think this line in his response a bit damning isn't it?

"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, not something we would certainly expect to happen."

Quite the opposite in my opinion.

Now if he had said,
"I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your OLED TV, I'm afraid that's something we see all the time, they're all rubbish really."
that would be different.

No I meant more in regards to my CR claims.

I don't think the panel should have developed a serious fault within the first 18 months and the guy at the shop has stated in writing it is not something they'd expect to happen.

So where I have to prove that an item is fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality, he's just confirmed it isn't as they wouldn't expect it to have developed that fault so soon.

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

RefluentBeans

The email still doesn’t state if they acknowledge they are the retailer (as the warranty is from LG anyway). You’ll need to confirm that they are acknowledging the purchase is from them and not from Digital River Ireland. 

The issue is going to be if you go down the consumer rights act route (after you’ve gotten someone to acknowledge they are the retailer) then they are in the right to ask for a report to indicate that the fault was inherent.

The line about surprised it appears faulty after this time is not proof of much, other than they would consider the product lifespan to be longer than 18 months; which you knew anyway. If anything it would be better if they acknowledged there’s a common problem with the displays as then you have more leverage (ie it’s clearly a bad batch/known issue to them). 

I would go back and make explicitly clear that you are wanting to claim under the consumer rights act, as you feel the product was faulty. Doing this solves two issues 1) LG will reject the CRA claim if they didn’t sell you the product so you can see if they acknowledge their responsibilities under the act (if they didn’t sell you the product but provide the warranty they will tell you to go back to the original retailer); and 2) if LG confirm they did sell the TV it puts a pause on the clock for the claim. 

They may very ask for you to provide evidence of such, normally from an engineers report or something similar. In that report it should state why the persons come to the conclusion that the panel is inherently faulty and not just user error/accidental damage/excessive use. They are in their right to ask for this, but if in your favour you can claim the cost of this report back. Alternatively they may send out an engineer to inspect the TV for free. Some companies do that others request you sort it - I don’t know how LG deals with these things. 

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

'Could be'... or it could have been dropped/damaged by the OP - so doesn't change anything re the OP having to prove the fault was inherent. 

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

'Could be'... or it could have been dropped/damaged by the OP - so doesn't change anything re the OP having to prove the fault was inherent. 

It would be impossible to prove it's never been dropped, as dropping doesn't always leave a mark. So on that basis no claim could ever go forward
Proof can be comparing other like products to show how long a product should last if it's not faulty, So someone admitting a component should last longer can be used a proof that component had an inherent fault.
The OP can also include photos  that show that it looks well cared for.

So as I said it could be an inherent fault  but I won't be the one deciding, if it comes to it, it will be a down to a judge to rule if it is  or isn't on the balance of probabilities.

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

'Could be'... or it could have been dropped/damaged by the OP - so doesn't change anything re the OP having to prove the fault was inherent. 

It would be impossible to prove it's never been dropped, as dropping doesn't always leave a mark. So on that basis no claim could ever go forward
Proof can be comparing other like products to show how long a product should last if it's not faulty, So someone admitting a component should last longer can be used a proof that component had an inherent fault.
The OP can also include photos  that show that it looks well cared for.

So as I said it could be an inherent fault  but I won't be the one deciding, if it comes to it, it will be a down to a judge to rule if it is  or isn't on the balance of probabilities.

It would be an independent engineer report - as is standard for these kinds of issues  

RefluentBeans

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

'Could be'... or it could have been dropped/damaged by the OP - so doesn't change anything re the OP having to prove the fault was inherent. 

It would be impossible to prove it's never been dropped, as dropping doesn't always leave a mark. So on that basis no claim could ever go forward
Proof can be comparing other like products to show how long a product should last if it's not faulty, So someone admitting a component should last longer can be used a proof that component had an inherent fault.
The OP can also include photos  that show that it looks well cared for.

So as I said it could be an inherent fault  but I won't be the one deciding, if it comes to it, it will be a down to a judge to rule if it is  or isn't on the balance of probabilities.

It would be an independent engineer report - as is standard for these kinds of issues  

Agree with this. In fact, if LG claimed that the TV would only last 12 months I think that’s even worse for them. 

The cost of this report is able to be claimed against the company if the fault is inherent and falls under the CRA. Obviously not every fault would fall under the CRA - and the CRA is not a warranty. 

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Not necessarily - you have to prove the fault was inherent, not caused by how to stored it/installed it etc. If he wouldn't expect that fault then that doesn't support your argument it's a manufacturing problem.

i.e. they could still reasonably require you to get an independent report (IF you can first persuade them to acknowledge your rights)

I read it the other way round.
If LG stated it the TV is only expected to last in full working order for 18 months, then there would be no inherent fault  as product lasted as long as it should have done.
If it wasn't expected to fail, then that part could be inherent faulty, as it didn't last as long as one that isn't faulty.

'Could be'... or it could have been dropped/damaged by the OP - so doesn't change anything re the OP having to prove the fault was inherent. 

It would be impossible to prove it's never been dropped, as dropping doesn't always leave a mark. So on that basis no claim could ever go forward
Proof can be comparing other like products to show how long a product should last if it's not faulty, So someone admitting a component should last longer can be used a proof that component had an inherent fault.
The OP can also include photos  that show that it looks well cared for.

So as I said it could be an inherent fault  but I won't be the one deciding, if it comes to it, it will be a down to a judge to rule if it is  or isn't on the balance of probabilities.

It would be an independent engineer report - as is standard for these kinds of issues  

It is, but always better to build as strong argument  as you can, using all information that supports your case