Phillips selling TVs not conforming to Saorview Standard in 2011

56lcd

Earlier this month I purchased a very expensive Philips 56PFL99554H cinema screen TV in Expert Electrical.
I enquired if the TV was fully Saorview compatible before I purchased it and the salesman assured me that it was, he could not display it working as he said the TV was hooked up to a SKY dish system.
The TV is huge so I had to pay a neighbour €30 to collect and deliver it to me.
When I set it up at home I was horrified to see the old style analogue text instead of the digital Saorview text.
By making enquiries on boards.ie I was able to get digital Saorview text by selecting the UK as my country location, when I set it to the UK I lost all the digital radio channels.
I spent ages on the phone with Philips technical staff on several occasions and the best they could do was tell me to take my TV back to where I bought it as they will not be fixing the problem .... This is a €1300 TV purchased in January 2011 and it is advertised for sale in many leading Irish Electrical outlets.
You would think that it would be a simple enough firmware fix but Philips seem intent on frustrating their customers instead.
Is it legal for Philips to be selling TVs that do not conform to Saorview standard in 2011.
What is the best course of action to take?
Should I call up Harvey Norman, Expert Electrical etc to highlight to them that they are selling Philips TVs that don't conform to Saorview standards?

watty

You are probably entitled to refund. http://www.saortv.info/2011/01/05/aso-in-less-than-two-years/

I'd recommend folk avoid Panasonic and Philips and be cautious about Toshiba.

Avoid Store Own Brands, unknown brands and Monitor Makers unless they have Saorview Certification. There are plenty of Working TVs.

It's quite legal to sell incompatible gear, but for up to 6 years you can claim damages and over two years refund/repair/replacement if a TV is not fit for purpose.

STB

You are not alone It is also being discussed in the certified thread - 1,2.

Problem arises because the middleware usage MHEG5 has not been profiled for use with Ireland Country Set up on both Panasonics and Philips. MHP, another middleware used in France etc has been profiled and its useless here as we dont use that middleware. MHEG5 has been a basic and minimum requirement since the spec was published in 2008.

MHEG5 has been profiled correctly on LG, Sony and Samsung Brands.

I'll leave you to guess why this is the case. Perhaps the CEDA group can tell you. Philips sit on that group.

Richersounds.ie: John

Hi Guys,

declared interest here - I sell Philips TV's.

This is an known issue on this particular model.

If you set the location as UK - there is no issue with MPEG4 and MHEG5 text is also available - however the OP is correct in saying that the Irish radio stations are not available.

We have already told the Customer that we have informed Philips of this issue and I have personally spoken to the General Manager and the Service Manager of Philips and they are aware of the issue and have told me that they have referred the issue to their technical department and I hope that there will be a firmware update to address this issue.

If I get an update I'll happily keep you all informed.

ATVB,

John Mc & Crew

watty

STB wrote: »

You are not alone It is also being discussed in the certified thread - 1,2.

Problem arises because the middleware usage MHEG5 has not been profiled for use with Ireland Country Set up on both Panasonics and Philips. MHP, another middleware used in France etc has been profiled and its useless here as we dont use that middleware. MHEG5 has been a basic and minimum requirement since the spec was published in 2008.

MHEG5 has been profiled correctly on LG, Sony and Samsung Brands.

I'll leave you to guess why this is the case. Perhaps the CEDA group can tell you. Philips sit on that group.

Even more Insane is fact that the MHEG variation used by RTE NL (the Broadcast Profile) is NOT some strange Irish, NZ, Hong Kong, etc, but specifically the UK profile!

Philips, Panasonic etc have had OVER two years to sort this. Even in respect of TVs made last August 2010.

endakenny

Surely, all you need to do is get a Saorview set-top box, which would work with any colour TV set.

Widescreen

watty wrote: »

You are probably entitled to refund. http://www.saortv.info/2011/01/05/aso-in-less-than-two-years/

I'd recommend folk avoid Panasonic and Philips and be cautious about Toshiba.

Avoid Store Own Brands, unknown brands and Monitor Makers unless they have Saorview Certification. There are plenty of Working TVs.

It's quite legal to sell incompatible gear, but for up to 6 years you can claim damages and over two years refund/repair/replacement if a TV is not fit for purpose.

Thats interesting that you mention Toshiba Watty. I got a 37" model last June and there is one issue with the digital text on it albeit only minor.
When you go into the text, the time that shows within the rte digital text is always wrong and in fact is usually a few hours ahead. That is the only issue and the text itself is up to date and works like an absolute rocket. I noticed there is no Ireland listed in the country list so I am thinking that might be the reason? It is set up using the UK. The actual time on the TV itself that shows up for a second or two when you change channel is fine.

byte

endakenny wrote: »

Surely, all you need to do is get a Saorview set-top box, which would work with any colour TV set.

Kinda defeats the purpose of buying a new TV and specifically requesting Saorview functionality.

Also, an extra STB means another remote control lying around.

maxg

watty wrote: »

Even more Insane is fact that the MHEG variation used by RTE NL (the Broadcast Profile) is NOT some strange Irish, NZ, Hong Kong, etc, but specifically the UK profile!

Philips, Panasonic etc have had OVER two years to sort this. Even in respect of TVs made last August 2010.

It looks like there is a typing error in the first post and the model is a 56PFL9954H. That is a TV from 2009.
Beside that what has mheg5 to do with the radio chanels?

watty

endakenny wrote: »

Surely, all you need to do is get a Saorview set-top box, which would work with any colour TV set.

Yes, during the 1980s we could have bought cheap Russian Secam TVs and used standalone Analogue Tuners (I had a Standalone PAL I tuner in 1983) too.

Any TV not compatible sold since March/August 2008 approx should have had an Analogue only Disclaimer.

Any TV sold since November 2010 that is not compatible, isn't really a TV. It's a Monitor.

watty

maxg wrote: »

It looks like there is a typing error in the first post and the model is a 56PFL9954H. That is a TV from 2009.
Beside that what has mheg5 to do with the radio chanels?

No-one knows why selecting UK "knocks out" the Radio (gives working MHEG5). If you select Ireland, then the TV & radio A/V work, but the MHEG5 is disabled.

The "UK" Country setting has some strange bug, perhaps to do with LCN of 200s rather than 700s for Radio. The "Ireland" Country setting has a more ordinary "mistake" where MHEG5 is deliberately disabled. March 2008 Philips knew that Ireland would use UK MHEG Profile.

The firmware is obviously faulty. 2009 is no excuse.

maxg

watty wrote: »

The firmware is obviously faulty. 2009 is no excuse.

Nobody knew in 2009 if irish dtt would officially start before 2012 or 2015.
There is still no official launch date for the full service.

Johnmb

maxg wrote: »

Nobody knew in 2009 if irish dtt would officially start before 2012 or 2015.
There is still no official launch date for the full service.

Irrelevant really. Nobody is saying they should put something extra into the TV, all they are being asked to do is allow the Ireland setting to use the already present MHEG5 specs, something they've known would be eventually required for quite some time now. And in 2009 it was a fair bet that Irish DTT would start in 2012, as that was what was required by the EU, but even if it was to be delayed, what excuse is that for not giving access to the already installed specs?

dnme

Philips are poor to respond to customers and have poor tech support IMO. I have been posting at a Philips forum here with multiple bugs on a Philips LED TV and not one response from Philips to date.

Their software is poor, very poor, a year in and still riddled with bugs. Already on revision 4 and nowhere near sorting things out. They are not providing oline EPG services to Ireland. etc etc etc

Its all a bit much. I bought my TV and my BLU-Ray as Philips devices. I'd think twice next time.

I have had the misfortune to use their live online chat. Spoke to a guy who knew nothing about what my problem was. He did not even know about the feature or where it was on the menu. He kept going and asking his supervisor and eventually (after about an hour of volly's) I just gave up.

You have to support your customers!!!!

suse103

I agree with keeping clear of philips tv's i have a 42pfl5604 and had to buy a set top box to get saorview , picture breakup , dropping ,definitly a mpeg4 software problem , 2 aerials , attenautors , boosters, filters and a tuner replacement later i gave up and bought a box for uninterupted tv

maxg

Johnmb wrote: »

Irrelevant really. Nobody is saying they should put something extra into the TV, all they are being asked to do is allow the Ireland setting to use the already present MHEG5 specs, something they've known would be eventually required for quite some time now. And in 2009 it was a fair bet that Irish DTT would start in 2012, as that was what was required by the EU, but even if it was to be delayed, what excuse is that for not giving access to the already installed specs?

Why should it be irrelevant? Do you know if the MHEG5 license fees were paid for TV's which were not sold to the UK?
The 2012 EU date is only a guidance. Due to international agreements the last date for ASO is 2015.

watty

maxg wrote: »

Nobody knew in 2009 if irish dtt would officially start before 2012 or 2015.
There is still no official launch date for the full service.

Actually, it was supposed to start in Oct 2008, Jan 2009, Apr 2009, Jul 2009, Aug 2009, jan 2010 etc... approximately. Only the desire to Launch payTV at same time was delaying the rollout.

Philips knew definitely in March 2008 they needed MHEG5 for Ireland. In fact it was clear by 2007 that we wouldn't use anything else.

It's true that in 2001 RTE was discussing MHP and not MHEG5 (why we don't know)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=284088&highlight=MHEG#post284088

04-11-2002, 10:03 Start of Dutch Rollout
I suggested unlikely that DTT would be standard across Europe.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=628948&postcount=2

DAB Rollout discussed. MPEG4 and DAB+ mentioned
27-10-2005, 15:39
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3530605&postcount=72

DTT testing (again) in Ireland. MPEG4 for SD and HD likely
03-01-2006, 15:47 FIVE YEARS AGO
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50633700

MPEG4 + MHEG5 boxes wanted for RTE DTT Start of Real RTE NL Rollout The 2006 to 2008 Three Rock and Clermont Cairn was a BT Demo for DCNER / Government attempt to sell PayTV licence

21-12-2007, 17:11 Over Three Years ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54775606&highlight=MHEG5#post54775606

There was a DTT test in 2005 in Dublin. Maybe the end of the 1999 .. 2001 series.

Originally in 1999 the idea was MPEG2, MHP and DVBT with DVB-RCT return channel. By end of 2005 this was abandoned.

Sam Russell

maxg wrote: »

Why should it be irrelevant? Do you know if the MHEG5 license fees were paid for TV's which were not sold to the UK?
The 2012 EU date is only a guidance. Due to international agreements the last date for ASO is 2015.

MHEG 5 is a royalty-free licence.

SPAWKER

Not Philips I know but the brother has a Panasonic TXP50X20L and it does not do MHEG5 but he was on to the Panasonic customer care team today to enquire if they were going to release a firmware update to enable it.Whoever he was talking to said that they were looking into it and they also admitted that their uk models were having problems getting digital text on the HD channels over there.To my knowledge their uk models have MHEG5 enabled on them,so maybe they are going to get their finger out and sort it out once and for all.

Johnmb

maxg wrote: »

Why should it be irrelevant? Do you know if the MHEG5 license fees were paid for TV's which were not sold to the UK?
The 2012 EU date is only a guidance. Due to international agreements the last date for ASO is 2015.

As Sam said, MHEG5 is royalty free. The date is irrelevant because the MHEG5 is already on the TV, so what difference does it make as to when we switch on the service? The facility is there now on the TVs, why possible reason is there to not allow it to work now?

watty

It's not Freeview compatible and can't have Freeview logo without MHEG5!

Satdog

Richersounds.ie: John wrote: »

Hi Guys,

declared interest here - I sell Philips TV's.

This is an known issue on this particular model.

If you set the location as UK - there is no issue with MPEG4 and MHEG5 text is also available - however the OP is correct in saying that the Irish radio stations are not available.

We have already told the Customer that we have informed Philips of this issue and I have personally spoken to the General Manager and the Service Manager of Philips and they are aware of the issue and have told me that they have referred the issue to their technical department and I hope that there will be a firmware update to address this issue.

If I get an update I'll happily keep you all informed.

ATVB,

John Mc & Crew

John,

What do you make of the response from Jonathan, Philips Customer Care Team in the thread below at #111. Said it was a hardware problem. I followed up with Philips but they didn't respond to my second EMail. My TV was bought from your good self.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056096032&page=8

Regards

The Cush

maxg wrote: »

The 2012 EU date is only a guidance. Due to international agreements the last date for ASO is 2015.

Th EU is to mandate the clearance of analogue television from the 800MHz Digital Dividend spectrum by 31st Dec 2012, a derogation will only be granted to 2015 in exceptional circumstances. The legislation is expected to be passed by this summer.

Widescreen

Watty

you mentioned the point below earlier in thread

"I'd recommend folk avoid Panasonic and Philips and be cautious about Toshiba."

In relation to the point I make below


Thats interesting that you mention Toshiba Watty. I got a 37" model last June and there is one issue with the digital text on it albeit only minor.
When you go into the text, the time that shows within the rte digital text is always wrong and in fact is usually a few hours ahead. That is the only issue and the text itself is up to date and works like an absolute rocket. I noticed there is no Ireland listed in the country set up list so I am thinking that might be the reason? It is set up using the UK. The actual time on the TV itself that shows up for a second or two when you change channel is fine.

Just wondering if you are aware of a way that the tv can be updated someway to fix this. its a fzv635. ?

thanks

watty

No.

We use same time as UK.

maxg

Sam Russell wrote: »

MHEG 5 is a royalty-free licence.

Do you say the middleware mheg5 engine is royalty free?

maxg

watty wrote: »

Philips knew definitely in March 2008 they needed MHEG5 for Ireland. In fact it was clear by 2007 that we wouldn't use anything else.

Who is saying a TV has to support any new broadcast method which will maybe come in the future or maybe not.
Can you post a link?

axer

watty wrote: »

It's quite legal to sell incompatible gear, but for up to 6 years you can claim damages and over two years refund/repair/replacement if a TV is not fit for purpose.

I will correct you once more, there is nothing in law that says that something should be fit for purpose for a specified period of time. Once the item is fit for purpose when you purchase it then it is fit for purpose. Future changes in 3rd party systems or the lack of signal available is irrelevant to fit for purpose.

Also this 2 year figure that watty mentions has been pulled from thin air and does not exist - when challenged before on this figure I was directed to a section of the sale of goods act that deals with Cars.

I agree with your sentiment watty but your facts in relation to the law are incorrect. Please stop spreading false information or else please show where in law it says this or even a court judgement - something to back it up as I would love to see where you are getting this information.

However the OP's situation is different to watty's generalised spiel that is being spewed everywhere in that he was relying on the seller's expertise and the seller gave incorrect information i.e. compatibility with a specific type of system. This is a clear cut breach of contract and the OP would have the right to completely rescind the contract.

watty

axer wrote: »

I will correct you once more, there is nothing in law that says that something should be fit for purpose for a specified period of time. Once the item is fit for purpose when you purchase it then it is fit for purpose. Future changes in 3rd party systems or the lack of signal available is irrelevant to fit for purpose.

Do you work for a Retailer? You were like a Retailer's Troll on the Consumer's Forum.

RTE NL Irish Digital TV tests started Christmas 2007, Original rollout was due for 2001
Spec Published in March 2008, confirmed August 2008
Trial launch supposed to be Autumn 2009 but was delayed to 29th October 2010 due to attempt to co-launch pay TV
Analogue switch off was always to be end of 2012.

TVs sold labelled as Digital that are not compatible here, but sold retail in Ireland are not fit for purpose since 29th October 2010, and arguably since 2008 or 2009 and likely to be agreed so in Small Claims court if bought since 2008.

It is established that a TV should last more than two years. CEDA (Trade, manufactureres etc) given notice in 2008 to get house in order!

Retailers and Wholesale have deliberately not been publicising the DSO process and 2012 ASO. Because it suits to "dump" obsolete stock in Ireland. I doubt we can ever prove it's a deliberate conspiracy.

The LEAST that can be done is help people that have been mislead or cheated by claims on Packaging and phrases such as "Digital TV" and "Full HDTV" or "HD Ready TV" to get a refund or replacement.

Why are are you determined to discourage people when the evidence is that Retailers ARE refunding or Replacing without even being forced by Small Claims Court?

STB

maxg wrote: »

Do you say the middleware mheg5 engine is royalty free?

Depends on who you are talking to maxg. We do not know who developed Phillips internal MHEG5 engine software. Perhaps they own it ? One thing is certainly true, MHP is licensed and its use is controlled through a central licensing collective agent (US company - Via Licensing). If the payments are on a Country Profile basis then Philips could save themselves some money by adopting MHEG5 for Ireland. Not only would they be following the published spec for Ireland, they would also save themselves needless monies through wrong middleware profiling.

By the way, the LG MHEG Engine is an in-house software receiver engine that adds MHEG-5 functionality to LGE digital television receivers. So some manufacturers do their own engine so costs are inhouse. So its not all third party products/licensing arrangements.

If anyone wants to read up on this further or see who has their own MHEG5 middleware without licensing problems they should look at the following. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion as its highly likely that these costs are minimal and absorbed into the price anyhow by the multinational manufacturers.

Again there would not be licensing problems with the right country profiling by manufacturers.

Consistency among manuafcturers ? Yes please.

http://www.impala.org/what-mheg

http://www.impala.org/impala_members

watty

maxg wrote: »

Do you say the middleware mheg5 engine is royalty free?

yes it is.
http://www.impala.org/

MHEG-5 is a licence-free, market-proven public standard hybrid interactive TV middleware.

axer

watty wrote: »

Do you work for a Retailer? You were like a Retailer's Troll on the Consumer's Forum.

No I don't work for any retailer and never have. Just because I questioned that you have no proof at all in the claims you are making with regards to refunds. You are making up rights that do not exist in law. There is nothing worse than that and it affects consumers that do know their rights because when a legitimate claim is made retailers think those that actually do know their rights are the same as the bullshi'tters that don't.

watty wrote: »

RTE NL Irish Digital TV tests started Christmas 2007, Original rollout was due for 2001
Spec Published in March 2008, confirmed August 2008
Trial launch supposed to be Autumn 2009 but was delayed to 29th October 2010 due to attempt to co-launch pay TV
Analogue switch off was always to be end of 2012.

That does not prove anything.

watty wrote: »

TVs sold labelled as Digital that are not compatible here, but sold retail in Ireland are not fit for purpose since 29th October 2010, and arguably since 2008 or 2009 and likely to be agreed so in Small Claims court if bought since 2008.

If something is advertised as digital and if it is digital then it is not false advertising. If something is advertising as being saorview compatible and if it is not saorview compatible then that is false advertising.

watty wrote: »

It is established that a TV should last more than two years. CEDA (Trade, manufactureres etc) given notice in 2008 to get house in order!

No it hasn't been established. No where in law does it say anything about 2 years. Stop making things up. This is what I am talking about. It does the opposite to helping.

watty wrote: »

Retailers and Wholesale have deliberately not been publicising the DSO process and 2012 ASO. Because it suits to "dump" obsolete stock in Ireland. I doubt we can ever prove it's a deliberate conspiracy.

There is no law to say they cannot do that. I dont agree that it should be allowed but there is nothing illegal about it.

watty wrote: »

The LEAST that can be done is help people that have been mislead or cheated by claims on Packaging and phrases such as "Digital TV" and "Full HDTV" or "HD Ready TV" to get a refund or replacement.

Yes but do not talk about legal rights that do not exist. By all means retailers should be challenged regarding misleading advertising and false advertising (the latter that can get you a full refund) but by making things up you are doing no good.

watty wrote: »

Why are are you determined to discourage people when the evidence is that Retailers ARE refunding or Replacing without even being forced by Small Claims Court?

Because you are making stuff up. People going into shops claiming that the sale of goods act gives them rights to a refund up to 2/6 years because their TV does not work with saorview etc does not help anyone because it is not true. By all means encourage people to complain but do not be telling them they have legal rights that they do not have. It only makes them look like idiots when that is claimed.

Retailers that are being underhand with information are being put under pressure and rightly so - hopefully that pressure will change their policies. Making stuff up will not help anyone.

STB

axer wrote: »

I will correct you once more, there is nothing in law that says that something should be fit for purpose for a specified period of time. Once the item is fit for purpose when you purchase it then it is fit for purpose. Future changes in 3rd party systems or the lack of signal available is irrelevant to fit for purpose.

Also this 2 year figure that watty mentions has been pulled from thin air and does not exist - when challenged before on this figure I was directed to a section of the sale of goods act that deals with Cars.

Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 wrote:

10 (13.—(1)) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

In most cases TVs being sold here have DVB digital ticks, Freeview logos and are sold in boxes that say up to 40 Digital Tv stations etc. But of course they wont work and indeed will they ever ?? NO.

It is quite clear that the product was destined for another country and sold here by unscupulous retailers dumping stock.

I dont see any mention of time limits in that Irish Act. The OP is talking about a situation whereby someone who bought an IDTV has only discovered that the IDTVs tuner doesnt work. Their expectations were that it would. Timewise, maybe they have a case, maybe they dont.

Irish Law aside.... and given that we are dealing with UK chains, quite a few will be aware of UK law (Sale of Goods Act) which sates that consumers have 6 years to make a claim for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if the product is not 'as described', 'of satisfactory quality', and/or 'fit for purpose' – this means both their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller.

watty

There is a 6 year limit for claims on Irish Act. It's in as a correction on 2 years on a previous act (1946?)

No specific time for a product to be "fit for purpose" The Small Claims court TV should last more than 2 years. Some other products less and some more.

There is nothing illegal about selling stuff that doesn't work. But if people complain it's not a as described or not fit for purpose then the law is clear, the person has to be refunded, or item replaced or repaired (no credit notes).

I haven't made anything up.

The fact is that most people think manufacturer's Guarantee or the Shop Returns policy is the important thing. It's not. The Description of the Item and the likely use is the implied Contract with the Retailer. Retailers that try to "beat" The Sale of Goods Act in Court always lose.

You can't get refund/replacement/repair because you misused it, don't like it or dog ate it or lightening hit it. But if it does not operate as described or is not fit for purpose for a "reasonable period of time" then the law is very clear.

A Digital TV in Ireland has to be compatible with MPEG4, DVB-T, AAC+, MHEG5. Just like an Analogue TV has to be PAL-I (not PAL B/G which would mean no sound).

A TV has to work via Aerial socket (RF tuner), or else it's not a TV at all, just a monitor.

TV's that are not Digital Compatible in Ireland Sold After January/March/December 2008 (depending on Court interpretation) before Jan 2010 100% needed a sticker blocking off all the Digital Claims. Or else it's sold as a Digital & Analogue TV for Ireland.

Since we 100% know there is no Analogue TV after 2012, and a TV should last more than 2 years, then it's reasonable to expect any TV currently sold to EITHER be compatible with Irish Digital (and everyone has had almost 3 years warning) OR have a LARGE sticker proclaiming that it's Analogue only and stop working at end of 2012.

I know for fact that Argos warned ALL staff to insist to people that only Compatible Digital TVs would work, that they don't know which those are till end of Jan 2011 catalogue is out and that Analogue will stop working, and possibly the TV in 2012.
They still have no signs up. I don't know when they warned the staff. But they have had a MASSIVE rise in returns since Nov 2010 due to higher customer awareness. Note they DO accept the Returns.

Sometimes I'm wrong or Mistaken. But I don't make stuff up. Unless there are suitable disclaimers stuck on TVs with Digital that don't work that are sold Retail in Ireland, then people are entitled to money back. The small claims court would have to decide just how far back people can go.

Certainly January 2009 is no problem. January 2005 is legal limit for claims. But TVs might not be expected to last 6 years and it was February 2008 that Government published a spec with Retailers and Manufacturers notified directly in March 2008 and RTE NL officially Published their document (with no changes that would affect a physical product) in December 2008. RTENL tests of current system started in December 2007. So if the Retailer's lawyer is really good, you get back to Jan 2009. Two years before now and 11 months after original Spec.

It could be argued that Manufacturer's could not Supply suitable Digital TV before Jan 2010. In that case the Court would as why was there not an "Analogue Only in Ireland" label plastered on the "Digital" as disclaimer? ALL the shops had a Duty to do that additional label from March 2008. They were specifically warned by Government in March 2008 not to sell any "freeview" product as Digital TV. That only compatible TVs should be labelled Digital.

The shops have now had almost 3 years to make sure they are selling Compatible TVs only, two years before ASO. Such TVs have been widely available at competitive prices for over 18 months.

Official Web Site http://saorview.ie/receiving.html

Unofficial Web site
http://www.saortv.info/terrestrial-saorview/for-retailers/
http://www.saortv.info/2011/01/05/aso-in-less-than-two-years/

This is not an endorsement. RTE and RTE NL and the ASO team are aware of saortv.info Obviously private phone calls and emails can't be published.

axer

STB wrote: »

In most cases TVs being sold here have DVB digital ticks, Freeview logos and are sold in boxes that say up to 40 Digital Tv stations etc. But of course they wont work and indeed will they ever ?? NO.

But were they advertised as working with Saorview or the protocols/technologies it uses? If not then it is not false advertising. The OP was wrongly told incorrect information and is entitled to a full refund as a result but if something is advertised as x and does x (even if there is no third part signal around to pick up 1.5-2 years later) that does not mean that the TV is not fit for purpose or not of marchantable quality when it has been used for 1.5-2 years proving it was fit to pick up the signals it was designed to pick up.

STB wrote: »

It is quite clear that the product was destined for another country and sold here by unscupulous retailers dumping stock.

Probably but that does not make it illegal. Immoral, yes, but not illegal. I have no problem with people being up in arms with the retailers still selling this stock (in fact I would join them) but people should not claim legals rights that do not exist.

STB wrote: »

I dont see any mention of time limits in that Irish Act.

The limit is the statuate of limitations which is 6 years. The 2 years watty speaks of does not exist.

STB wrote: »

Irish Law aside.... and given that we are dealing with UK chains, quite a few will be aware of UK law (Sale of Goods Act) which sates that consumers have 6 years to make a claim for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if the product is not 'as described', 'of satisfactory quality', and/or 'fit for purpose' – this means both their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller.

Irish and adopted european laws are the only things that matter here. Just because something ought to be the way doesn't mean it is legally the way.

Johnmb

axer wrote: »

You are making up rights that do not exist in law.

Ireland is a common law country, not a civil law one. That means precedents count just as much (if not potentially more so) as a specific act. It doesn't matter if the relevant act does or doesn't set a limit, if the courts (Small Claims Court included) have determined that a certain limit is fair. If they have upheld the 2/6 year idea, then it is binding, unless and until a higher courts changes it (Or a new act is created that changes it)

STB

CEDA (The Consumer Electronics Distributors Association, (CEDA)) is the sectoral association within ICT Ireland promoting the development and representing the interests of the major distributors of consumer electronic goods in Ireland.

"Member Benefits and Services

Our membership base regularly consults with Government departments and organisations such as the Department of Communications & Natural Resources, RTE and the Commission for Communications Regulation to ensure that policy makers are up to date with both the short and long term needs and industry goals."

Members of CEDA include:

Audiovisual Import, Beko, Dimpco, JVC, KAL., LG Electronics, Panasonic, Philips Ireland, Sanyo, Sharp and Sony Ireland

They were written to regarding the right products in 2008 by DCMNR advising about min requirements - MPEG4 etc.

axer

watty wrote: »

There is a 6 year limit for claims on Irish Act. It's in as a correction on 2 years on a previous act (1946?)

I dont know about old laws, all I know is there is no mention of 2 years anywhere.

watty wrote: »

No specific time for a product to be "fit for purpose" The Small Claims court TV should last more than 2 years. Some other products less and some more.

Yes, there is no time mentioned anywhere as to how longs goods should be fit for purpose. If there was then there would be refunds for lots of technologies - think hd dvd.

watty wrote: »

There is nothing illegal about selling stuff that doesn't work. But if people complain it's not a as described or not fit for purpose then the law is clear, the person has to be refunded, or item replaced or repaired (no credit notes).

Its illegal if products are sold with incorrect information or if the seller is an expert that should be relied on and they gave wrong information.

A TV bought right now is fit for purpose. You see the sale of goods act works on the principal of contract law (or adds implied conditions to all consumer-business contracts). The terms refer to when the item was purchased e.g. merchantable quality - if a fault shows up then the product was not of merchantable quality when the item was sold -> not because it is not of merchantable quality 2 years later. The goes for all the other terms unless specified otherwise.

The law does not add the rights you refer to - I again challenge you to show me where in the law you are getting your information or even a judgement made on this issue. Otherwise please stop spreading this false information lie (i'd say false information only I have already corrected you enough so at this stage it is just lies).

axer

Johnmb wrote: »

Ireland is a common law country, not a civil law one. That means precedents count just as much (if not potentially more so) as a specific act. It doesn't matter if the relevant act does or doesn't set a limit, if the courts (Small Claims Court included) have determined that a certain limit is fair. If they have upheld the 2/6 year idea, then it is binding, unless and until a higher courts changes it (Or a new act is created that changes it)

I have asked for where it says in law or a judgement made on it - neither of which have been provided.

I would love if this were the case i.e. that people could get a remedy for this dodgy practice but I don't believe there are any legal rights unless someone can show me where they are coming from.

STB

Axer

I agree with your view that Philips do not make any claims of Saorview compliance.

However the specification has been out some time but even the minimum requirements are being ignored by certain manufacturers or simply on board but not switched on in the IDTV (country set-up control - what you will constantly see me refering to as Country profiling).

In most cases the punter buying new equipment to receive digital TV signals seeks advice from retailers to determine the system that will best suit both budget and needs. Silly them! Short of them asking specific questions they will be mugged at the counter. Most shops I have visited dont even offer signs saying this will work, this wont, this is fully compliant. Its a minefield for non technical or non TV model anoraks.

In a lot of cases people are being bamboozled with buzz terms that apply to the UK rather than here. One could easily go away with the expectation of receiving 40+ freeview stations etc.

In the cases of people who have bought a TV quite recently with the expectation of picking up DTT and being sold a dud, their consumer rights are to return the item especially if the IDTV tuner doesnt work.

In France they had the right idea, they took it out of the retailers hands and minimum spec stocking was enforced.

A lot of the consumer issues end up with retailers, not the manufacturers but they are equally to blame for not profiling minimum specs into country set up options for pan european sold TVs. Some can do it, some cant. Why is that ? A lot of dependance on good consumer relations is being put on retailers, that I agree. The habit of sourcing the wrong or cheapo products from the UK by retailers has to stop.

Finally a TV is not a TV without a working tuner. You wouldnt be allowed sell TVs with ATSC tuners in them, they wouludnt work either btw.

This thread is very heated... and has went severely off topic.

axer

STB wrote: »

Axer

I agree with your view that Philips do not make any claims of Saorview compliance.

However the specification has been out some time but even the minimum requirements are being ignored by certain manufacturers or simply on board but not switched on in the IDTV (country set-up control - what you will constantly see me refering to ask Country profiling).

In most cases the punter buying new equipment to receive digital TV signals seeks advice from retailers to determine the system that will best suit both budget and needs. Silly them! Short of them asking specific questions they will be mugged at the counter. Most shops I have visited dont even offer signs saying this will work, this wont, this is fully compliant. Its a minefield for non technical or non TV model anoraks.

In a lot of cases people are being bamboozled with buzz terms that apply to the UK rather than here. One could easily go away with the expectation of receiving 40+ freeview stations etc.

See that is arguing morals which I am not disputing - I agree that it is a dodgy practice and the ignorant will get stung. I am talking specifically about the legal rights watty falsely claim exist.

STB wrote: »

In the cases of people who have bought a TV quite recently with the expectation of picking up DTT and being sold a dud, their consumer rights are to return the item especially if the IDTV tuner doesnt work.

If the sales person gave the wrong information or if the tv was marked as compatible in any way then I would agree but failing those then there are no legal rights - there are moral rights (if such a thing exists).

STB wrote: »

In France they had the right idea, they took it out of the retailers hands and minimum spec stocking was enforced.

Exactly that is what we should have done here but we didnt thus there are no legal rights to a refund during the mystical 2 year period.

STB wrote: »

A lot of the consumer issues end up with retailers, not the manufacturers but they are equally to blame for not profiling minimum specs into country set up options for pan european sold TVs. Some can do it, some cant. Why is that ? A lot of dependance on good consumer relations is being put on retailers, that I agree. The habit of sourcing the wrong or cheapo products from the UK by retailers has to stop.

Couldn't agree more. My point has been simply all along that unless the item was claimed to do something that it can't/doesnt do (including by relying on an expert to tell you whether something can do x or not) then there are no rights for a refund etc. Morally it is disgraceful, legally it is not illegal.

I am completely open to correction if someone can point to a law or a judgement that says otherwise.

watty

The Retailer is making an implied claim by NOT having an Disclaimer on in store display and each package. The Sale of Goods Act is very clear on this. The Retailer has an obligation to put a Label "Not Irish Digital Compatible, Analogue only"

Like having this on EACH package and Display from now on.

For TVs only suitable as Monitors after 2012
Analogue Only, Not Digital Compatible

axer

watty wrote: »

The Retailer is making an implied claim by NOT having an Disclaimer on in store display and each package. The Sale of Goods Act is very clear on this. The Retailer has an obligation to put a Label "Not Irish Digital Compatible, Analogue only"

Your ideas while morally great need to be backed up by law or some judgement. Please stop repeating the same false information over and over again if you have nothing to back it up.

dnme

Talk about the total destruction of a thread!

watty

axer wrote: »

I have asked for where it says in law or a judgement made on it - neither of which have been provided.

I would love if this were the case i.e. that people could get a remedy for this dodgy practice but I don't believe there are any legal rights unless someone can show me where they are coming from.

Can't you read the Sale of Goods Act?

All there in Black and White. The Small Claims Court HAVE interpreted exactly as I say.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/pricewatch/2010/0517/1224270540798.html

The law is very clear in cases such as this. While Ireland is exempt from the European Union Directive 1999/44/EC mentioned by our reader, consumers have full protection under the Sale of Goods Act.

The act states very clearly that products must be fit for purpose, of merchantable quality and as described for a reasonable amount of time after purchase – and by any definition, it is reasonable to assume that a TV that costs more than €800 will last for more than two years. If it doesn’t, then the consumer is entitled to a repair, a replacement or a refund. The manufacturer’s warranty is entirely irrelevant in cases such as this.

Another point worth making is that the person’s contract is with Tesco and no one else. We contacted the National Consumer Agency, which confirmed that our reader’s friend was covered under the Sale of Goods Act. We were told that the first course of action would be to talk to the management in Tesco. If the company refuses to alter its stance, then our reader was advised to put the complaint in writing and send it via registered mail. If no satisfactory response was forthcoming, the next step is the Small Claims Court.

watty

axer wrote: »

Your ideas while morally great need to be backed up by law or some judgement. Please stop repeating the same false information over and over again if you have nothing to back it up.

Stop contradicting the Irish Statutes and NCA and claiming I'm making stuff up.

Go talk to NCA and People familiar with Small Claims Court rather than bad mouthing me.

axer

watty wrote: »

Stop contradicting the Irish Statutes and NCA and claiming I'm making stuff up.

Go talk to NCA and People familiar with Small Claims Court rather than bad mouthing me.

Im not making the claim of legal rights! You are! You should back up your assertations since you keep making them or else stop making those claims.

The link you point to and quote from the Irish Times is not even in relation to the issue at hand. I encourage anybody reading this to click on the link and read the entire article. It relates to a faulty tv. The article writer's opinion is 2 years - that has absolutely nothing to do with law. Its an opinion. The NCA opinion is yes, the person should get their faulty TV fixed under the law. The link is completely irrelevant to this debate.

All I am asking you for is proof of your claim or stop making the claim. Linking to the entire sale of goods act is not giving proof. If you want to say they are morally wrong and encourage people to give out then I am 100% behind you but to make claims of legal rights without evidence is plain wrong. Show me the evidence and I will agree with you.

axer

watty wrote: »

I haven't made anything up.

Unfortunately you haven't been able to back up your claims. They seem to exist without any evidence whatsoever.

I'll only quote one part of you post since the rest is just unsubstantiated opinion with no legal backing whatsoever.

watty wrote: »

They were specifically warned by Government in March 2008 not to sell any "freeview" product as Digital TV. That only compatible TVs should be labelled Digital.

Warned or was a law brought in? Two COMPLETELY different things and the crux of my point.

Morally wrong is not the same as legally illegal
Government warning is not the same as law

axer

dnme wrote: »

Talk about the total destruction of a thread!

Someone has to speak reality. I keep hearing "very clear in law" but yet nobody can point to where it is very clear in law. It is in people's interest to not think they have legal rights that they do not have.

56lcd

axer wrote: »

But were they advertised as working with Saorview or the protocols/technologies it uses? If not then it is not false advertising. The OP was wrongly told incorrect information and is entitled to a full refund as a result but if something is advertised as x and does x (even if there is no third part signal around to pick up 1.5-2 years later) that does not mean that the TV is not fit for purpose or not of marchantable quality when it has been used for 1.5-2 years proving it was fit to pick up the signals it was designed to pick up.

Probably but that does not make it illegal. Immoral, yes, but not illegal. I have no problem with people being up in arms with the retailers still selling this stock (in fact I would join them) but people should not claim legals rights that do not exist.

The limit is the statuate of limitations which is 6 years. The 2 years watty speaks of does not exist.

Irish and adopted european laws are the only things that matter here. Just because something ought to be the way doesn't mean it is legally the way.

The tech support staff at the coperate giant Philips stated that they wont fix the firmware on this TV so that it can broadcast the Saorview channels with digital teletext and the the digital radio channels.
It can't be rocket science to do this as the digital teletext is available by setting your country location to the UK and you can get the radio channels without the digital teletext by setting your country to Ireland.
All I am getting from Philips is a "we couldn't care less" attitude, why are people going out of their way to justify Philips extremely poor attitude towards it's customers.
I had planned to buy a Philips Blu-Ray player but after this episode I will never purchase anything from them again.
Philips have not done themselves any favours with their abysmal attitude towards their customers ex-customers.
The problem is for Philips to fix.
A little exposure on national media that highlights the fact that Philips are selling TVs that don't conform to Irish digital standards may help persuade Philips not to disregard Irish customers.
Will it be cheaper for them to fix the firmware or have to take warehouses full of their TVs out of Ireland.
No honest retailer should sell defective Philips TVs in Ireland, if it is not illegal to sell these non conforming TVs then it should be .... it is certainly immoral.
Only someone with a vested interest in Philips would support their irrational stance on this issue.

watty

It's not Philips's Problem. It really isn't. The Retailers sold them. The "contract" is between Retailers and Customer.

The TVs should have had a Analogue Only in Ireland, Incompatible Digital System Sticker

I wonder how quick Philips would fix the small bug in Software if Retailers threatened to boycott Philips?

Philips's Customers are Wholesalers/Retailers, not the Public.