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

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

But the man on the bus isn't likely to make TV's

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

So have it from the maker that it shouldn't fail, so that is the first proof needed from the experts, now it goes onto why.

Alderbank

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

But the man on the bus isn't likely to make TV's

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

So have it from the maker that it shouldn't fail, so that is the first proof needed from the experts, now it goes onto why.

That's quite an extrapolation.

The first level call handler has expressed a personal opinion. I don't think he is 'the maker' any more than the man on the Clapham Omnibus is, and he is certainly not one of 'the experts'. He will probably be ticked off for not sticking to his script.
His opinion is nothing more than the actual makers saying something like 'Our products are of the highest quality and we expect you will have many years of happy enjoyment'. In legal terms, 'a mere puff'.

Edited to add: 
Perhaps I am badmouthing the poor call handler. Probably his script does instruct him to say for any complaint, "I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your [our product], not something we would certainly expect to happen"

RefluentBeans

Alderbank said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

But the man on the bus isn't likely to make TV's

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

So have it from the maker that it shouldn't fail, so that is the first proof needed from the experts, now it goes onto why.

That's quite an extrapolation.

The first level call handler has expressed a personal opinion. I don't think he is 'the maker' any more than the man on the Clapham Omnibus is, and he is certainly not one of 'the experts'. He will probably be ticked off for not sticking to his script.
His opinion is nothing more than the actual makers saying something like 'Our products are of the highest quality and we expect you will have many years of happy enjoyment'. In legal terms, 'a mere puff'.

Edited to add: 
Perhaps I am badmouthing the poor call handler. Probably his script does instruct him to say for any complaint, "I am sorry to hear that you are having issues with your [our product], not something we would certainly expect to happen"

Yeah 100% agree with this - it would be different if the call handler acknowledged that this has been a common issue for the model. That would at least hint at the possibility there is some inherent fault and that they are known issues with the product. 

Outside of that it literally adds nothing (nor takes away) from the OP’s original state. If customer services didn’t acknowledge the frustrations of consumers it would lead to greater frustrations to the the consumer as it would seem like the customer service is unempathetic. 

ArbitraryRandom

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

But the man on the bus isn't likely to make TV's

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

So have it from the maker that it shouldn't fail, so that is the first proof needed from the experts, now it goes onto why.

But the man on the bus is likely to BUY a tv... hence is representative of what a reasonable consumer would expect from a product at that price point - which is relevant given we're talking consumer rights and an Act which requires goods to "meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory" 

Meaning again, the view of the manufacturer representative on that specific point adds to or takes nothing away from the OP's case  

HillStreetBlues

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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

Completely - but the statement made isn't supportive or damaging to the case...

Everyone (given the value and type of product, it's fair to say including the man on the bus) would reasonably assume it would have lasted longer than it did - the fact it didn't means it's EITHER inherently faulty or damaged, and - given the time since purchased - it's for the OP to provide the evidence it's inherent. 

Which is exactly the position we were in before the email was sent  

But the man on the bus isn't likely to make TV's

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

So have it from the maker that it shouldn't fail, so that is the first proof needed from the experts, now it goes onto why.

But the man on the bus is likely to BUY a tv... hence is representative of what a reasonable consumer would expect from a product at that price point - which is relevant given we're talking consumer rights and an Act which requires goods to "meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory" 

Meaning again, the view of the manufacturer representative on that specific point adds to or takes nothing away from the OP's case  

I think I'll have to agree to disagree otherwise we will be here all night and get very boring for others.

realdannys

Ok so I wrote back to them with something similar to what ArbitraryRandom said:

I'd wait for others to chip in, but I'd be inclined to reply with something like: 

Dear Lewis, thank you for your email. 

To clarify, I purchased a [Model name] television from you [LG.com/uk], on [Date]. The order details are as follows:

• Order Number: [Your order number]
• Date of Purchase: [Date of purchase]
• Product: [Model name]
• [Link to product if still available or attach a screenshot if on wayback machine]

I understand you are offering me a warranty repair for a fee, however, as stipulated by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. If a product fails to meet these criteria, consumers have the right to request a repair or replacement for a period of not less than 6 years - these rights cannot be removed or modified by the terms of a warranty. 

I kindly request that you confirm the details of my purchase and that, as a consumer in the UK, I am entitled to the protections outlined by the Consumer Rights Act for faulty goods. If you do are unable to agree, I would appreciate you confirming specifically why this you believe this to be the case or escalating the issue within your organisation to someone who may be able to assist me. 

And their replay they sent is this:

Good Afternoon Daniel, 

As per your Consumer Rights, if your product fails within the manufacturer warranty period then you will be entitled to a free of charge repair. 

However, as the fault you have reported has developed outside of the warranty period, LG are unable to provide you with a free of charge warranty repair service. 

Due to the age of your unit, we would like to offer you support in resolving the fault and we offer a repair service for chargeable fee to repair the unit outside of the warranty period under the 5-year panel warranty. If the unit is repairable then a repair must be the first point of resolution. If the unit is deemed beyond repair, LG will be happy to investigate this further and see what options we can provide to resolve your complaint.

If you are unhappy with this response, I would advise you to seek advice from trading standards or your local ombudsman and we would be happy to discuss this further. 

Kind regards,

Lewis | LG Shop Team Manager

----------------------------------

realdannys

Any thoughts to this? Obviously they're not going to do anything - and I assume any small court claim I start is going to take 6-8 months at least. In which time i've got a TV that's very annoying to watch.

I suppose if I want a fairly quick resolution and some chance to reclaim money my option is to pay for the repair "under duress" and then try and claim it back via the small claims court?

Aylesbury_Duck

realdannys said:

Any thoughts to this? Obviously they're not going to do anything - and I assume any small court claim I start is going to take 6-8 months at least. In which time i've got a TV that's very annoying to watch.

I suppose if I want a fairly quick resolution and some chance to reclaim money my option is to pay for the repair "under duress" and then try and claim it back via the small claims court?

Would that work?  You'd be simultaneously agreeing to a charged-for repair, inviting them to collect your TV and repair it and then claim you're paying "under duress".  You're either agreeing to the repair, or not.

A quick resolution is to pay for the repair, but I wouldn't do that in your position.  If you want to exercise your consumer rights, then send them a letter before action.  It may stimulate a different response but if it doesn't, you'll need to see it through to court action to get the resolution you want.

realdannys

Aylesbury_Duck said:

realdannys said:

Any thoughts to this? Obviously they're not going to do anything - and I assume any small court claim I start is going to take 6-8 months at least. In which time i've got a TV that's very annoying to watch.

I suppose if I want a fairly quick resolution and some chance to reclaim money my option is to pay for the repair "under duress" and then try and claim it back via the small claims court?

Would that work?  You'd be simultaneously agreeing to a charged-for repair, inviting them to collect your TV and repair it and then claim you're paying "under duress".  You're either agreeing to the repair, or not.

A quick resolution is to pay for the repair, but I wouldn't do that in your position.  If you want to exercise your consumer rights, then send them a letter before action.  It may stimulate a different response but if it doesn't, you'll need to see it through to court action to get the resolution you want.

It was something i'd elsewhere that if you're forced to pay, make sure you make our you're paying under duress and that you don't agree to the payment - then you attempt to reclaim it later.

It probably does harm you - it's just I know going through small claims previously has taken 6-8 months just to get a court date...and which point i've watched a TV with a line down the middle for a long time. 

It's annoying really - I think the moral of the store might be, buy from Richer Sounds and take advantage of their warranty even if it's more expensive. I suspect i'd have had this fixed now. It's daft I get 5 year warranties with SSDs that cost £100, but LG want me to pay £660 to repair a TV that cost almost £4000 an developed a fault after less than 18 months.