TV fault at 18 months

Jurph

Hi everyone. Thanks for having me.

I'm struggling to find out what my rights are regarding my 18 month old TV.

It is a £349 43" Samsung LED 4K UHD TV purchased online from Curry's on 31st July 2022. It worked well until last week when the LED back-light failed. I'm not very technical but I googled the issue and realised I could see the picture with a torch leading me to conclude it's the backlight.

I contacted Samsung who basically said "tough, it's out of warranty". Curry's charge £125 just for checking it plus any repair costs. 

It this all correct? Surely TVs are expected to last more than 18 months? Is there anything I can do? Thanks.

ArbitraryRandom

Yes, items should last a 'reasonable time' after purchase (depending on things like the type of item, price point, statements made in advertising etc) - and in the UK you can seek a remedy for up to 6 years. 

Samsung are correct, as the manufacturer, their liability ends at the end of any warranty period - Under the Consumer Rights Act, it's the seller who is responsible for any issues you have (Currys). 

First point, as the TV is more than 6 months old, it is your responsibility to prove the fault is inherent (a manufacturing or quality issue rather than where you have it or how you've been using it) - this would be the engineer visit or you could get an independent report from a local repair person. The good news is that if you prove it's not you, then you can claim back the cost of the inspection. 

Second point, as the TV is more than 6 months old and this is the FIRST time you have reported a problem, the seller has the right to attempt to repair the TV or offer you a replacement (their choice). Again this should be at their cost if the fault is inherent (so if you pay for the engineer and they find/repair a fault then they should refund the cost and the repair should be free). 

If they fail to solve the issue (they can't repair or replace or there's a second fault), then YOU can decide if you want them to try again or give you a refund. Any refund would be based on the amount of time you have had use of the TV taken from the expected life of the TV (so if it reasonably would have lasted 6 years, you would get 2/3 of what you paid back). 

 In the event you need to remind Currys of the above, this is the law relating to your rights to the product being of satisfactory quality: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/what-statutory-rights-are-there-under-a-goods-contract/enacted

This is the section relating to your right to a repair (at the seller's cost) if the TV is inherently faulty: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23/enacted

Hope that's helpful and please let us know what Currys say 

Jurph

Thank you! 

I'm sure it's not my fault - I think I'm just reluctant to spend so much money on something I've already spent a lot of money on. I like principles though and feel they should do something.

Decisions, decisions!

Thanks for you time.

SaverRate

Whilst it wont help you now, next time buy from Richer Sounds or John Lewis if they offer a good price for the TV as they offer 5/6 year warranty on most of their TV's (it will be advertised on the product page). 

Alternatively if you can get it cheaper elsewhere see if you can buy an extended warranty if your worried about the TV failing. If it still works out cheaper than the JL/RS price then go for that option?

macman

Your only remedy is a CRA 2015 claim against the retailer, DSG. Bear in mind that after 18m, a TV that cost £349 new will be worth little more than £200. Your claim will be for the current value, not replacement cost or cost new.
Start with an LBA, then small claims process 14 days later, for which you will need an engineer's report to prove a pre-existing fault. If that costs £100, plus the court fee of £35, then you are paying £135 upfront for a £200 claim with no guarantee of success.
However, since defending this would cost them several thousand, you may find that they will concede upon receipt of the LBA alone for a relatively trivial claim. Or they simply won't turn up to defend it.