Tesco. no comeback with unsuitable DTT TV

axer

watty wrote: »

Exactly. The packaging ALSO says Digital TV. It's sold in Ireland, thus it's reasonable to assume, that the notice is saying you won't get Freeview channels. The notice doesn't say the Digital feature doesn't work.

My point was the "no Freeview"

watty wrote: »

Some of the "Freeview" TVs sold by Tesco do work here.

Do you work for Tesco?

Why? because I say they are morally and ethically wrong to sell the tvs but that there is nothing in law stopping them? There should be a law like apparently in France but the fact is there isn't one. Instead of filling people with the wrong info regarding the law (or at least info that is not backed up in anyway legally other than speculation and unqualified opinion) people should be encouraged to contact their TDs to get a law implemented and educated on what to look for. Filling people with a very unclear law (one that does not back up your assertations) will make them look like idiots straight away.

If you are so sure about the law being so clear on this then why not purchase one of the TVs and then bring the seller to the small claims court for a refund or even get an organisation like the NCA to issue a statement on the matter - while not a court judgement it would still be something but at present you just have speculation and unqualified opinion.

watty

What part don't you get that "Freeview" notices were referring to inability to receive Freeview channels in Ireland and implied NOTHING about the Digital Compatibility.

I can't purchase one last year. So your example is flawed.

Also in every case I know there has been no need to go to court. The Retailer has refunded or replaced.

I HAVE NEVER EVER said that it was illegal to sell incompatible TVs. But the Sale of Goods act is clear, the packaging claims form part of the contract between Retailer and Customer.

Why did they not put labels saying "Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish TV"? They could easily have been doing this since summer 2008. Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

EVERY post you are misrepresenting what the Shop's Disclaimer was and what I'm saying. Why?

axer

watty wrote: »

What part don't you get that "Freeview" notices were referring to inability to receive Freeview channels in Ireland and implied NOTHING about the Digital Compatibility.

Exactly so the notices are correct, the tv's cannot pick up freeview here. That was all my point was - you said the stickers were inaccurate - maybe you meant that they did not go far enough.

watty wrote: »

I can't purchase one last year. So your example is flawed.

can't buy one what?

watty wrote: »

Also in every case I know there has been no need to go to court. The Retailer has refunded or replaced.

Just because it the retailer refunded does not mean that they legally had to refund. I think they should morally/ethically refund if they misled in any way but I don't see legally why they would have to refund. My problem with your posts is that you are quoting law to back you up that does not seem to have any relevance nor has even been tested to back up your claims which are just speculation and unqualified opinion.

Turbulent Bill

Good debate folks (for the most part!). I had a look at the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 (Section 10), part of which states:

"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.

(2) A sale of goods shall not be prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale, they are selected by the buyer.

(3) A reference to goods on a label or other descriptive matter accompanying goods exposed for sale may constitute or form part of a description."

The key phrase as I see it is "implied condition", and whether a judge would interpret the "Digital" labelling (of whatever form) as implying Irish DTT compatability. This seems to be a gray area - Tesco aren't strictly liable as Saorview isn't mentioned, but neither are they off the hook for advertising the TVs as "digital". I think it would come down to the judge's take on case(s), if they even got to court.

As a disclaimer, I've no legal background, just my 2c.

The Cush

Two more recent pieces of legislation may also apply here, the 1999 EU Directive and the 2003 SI which gave effect to the Directive in Irish Law.

watty

From The Cush http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), these Regulations are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other enactment relating to the sale of goods or the terms of contracts concluded with consumers, and in particular —


(a) the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893 and 1980,


and


(b) the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations 1995 ( S.I. No. 27 of 1995 ).


(2) In particular, Regulation 4 is in addition to, and not in substitution for, a provision of any other enactment that provides that a consumer shall not be deprived, by virtue of a choice of the kind mentioned in that Regulation, of the protection afforded by any enactment.

axer

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

The key phrase as I see it is "implied condition", and whether a judge would interpret the "Digital" labelling (of whatever form) as implying Irish DTT compatability. This seems to be a gray area - Tesco aren't strictly liable as Saorview isn't mentioned, but neither are they off the hook for advertising the TVs as "digital". I think it would come down to the judge's take on case(s), if they even got to court.

As a disclaimer, I've no legal background, just my 2c.

Yes, a very gray area indeed. The TVs are digital but the the TV does not support the compression and other technologies that saorview uses. It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

watty

axer wrote: »

Yes, a very gray area indeed. The TVs are digital but the the TV does not support the compression and other technologies that saorview uses. It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

Wrong. A tough fight for Retailer to win. Government warned them in 2008 exactly about this. They could easily and cheaply added simple, clear additional labels.

Why did they not?

axer

The Cush wrote: »

Two more recent pieces of legislation may also apply here, the 1999 EU Directive and the 2003 SI which gave effect to the Directive in Irish Law.

Yes but they don't really add anything since the issue really comes down to the description of the TV and the formation of the sales contract. The TV is described as digital which it is and supports freeview which it does. Was there an implied condition as to the need for saorview compatibility? A TV that can pick up television signals is a TV whether there are signals to be picked up or not and at the moment the tv has signal to pick up - so it cannot be argued that it is not a TV. It will be tough for consumers to prove that there was an implied condition of their sales contract with the seller that it would support saorview since the TV can pick up signals no problem at the time of sale and for a fairly long period afterwards until a third party stopped sending the signals.

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

It is far from clear imo and would be a tough fight for any consumer to win.

They almost certainly would win, believe me. Consumer law is very clear and strict about misrepresentation and how descriptions are implied.

There are grey areas in consumer law for sure. Let me give you an example: TV manufacturer's 1 year warranties have no bearing in a dispute between a retailer and a consumer. The contract is between those two parties, and the length of time a TV should work is not by any means set in stone - a 'reasonable time' is what consumer affairs state. The same agency are aware of the current situation you can be sure.

The key point here is TV's are being sold as Irish Digital ready when they are not - IMO consumer affairs will proceed on that basis.

axer

watty wrote: »

Wrong. A tough fight for Retailer to win. Government warned them in 2008 exactly about this. They could easily and cheaply added simple, clear additional labels.

A warning has no legal standing. The government should have legislated with regards this if they wanted conformity.

watty wrote: »

Why did they not?

Probably for underhand reasons but underhand does not mean something is actually illegal.

You see I am not disputing that it is immoral or unethical - all I am saying is there is no compelling evidence that it is illegal and until there is a judgement one way or another we cannot speculate that the law is clear on this matter when it is far from so.

It will ultimately come down to a judge to decide and I would be surprised if they decided that after 2 years of usage that the consumer should be entitled to a refund or even an exchange just because a third party changed their system. People will, in my opinion, be just told to purchase a set top box. Anyone know how much these retail for?

I think the most guilty party here is RTE for there bad supply of information. Ever since the specifications were finalised they should have had constant advertisements on TV warning people that there are only specific models certified to work with saorview and that freeview etc tvs will not necessarily work with their new system.

axer

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

They almost certainly would win, believe me. Consumer law is very clear and strict about misrepresentation and how descriptions are implied.

But the descriptions on those tvs are correct - it is the consumer's ignorance of what description they need for saorview that is the issue. Consumer law is far from clear and strict about this since it is not a typical scenario i.e. where a TV can pick up signal because signal is available and then 2 years later a third party turns off the signal thus the TV no longer can pick it up even though it has the capability to do so and it is not faulty. Far from clear in law.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

There are grey areas in consumer law for sure. Let me give you an example: TV manufacturer's 1 year warranties have no bearing in a dispute between a retailer and a consumer.

That is a black and white area in consumer law

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

The contract is between those two parties

That is black and white foundational contract law.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

and the length of time a TV should work is not by any means set in stone - a 'reasonable time' is what consumer affairs state.

This is a gray area alright that ultimately comes down to a judge if negotiations between consumer and seller fail.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

The key point here is TV's are being sold as Irish Digital ready when they are not - IMO consumer affairs will proceed on that basis.

But they are not being sold as Irish Digital ready - if they were then then a consumer would have the right to rescind the contract instantly for breach of a condition. The TVs have "Freeview" or "Digital" - my understanding is none of them say "Irish digital ready". If they did, and I have not checked every possible tv on sale in every shop, then the consumer would have complete right to redress.

watty

What TV ever had "Irish Colour Ready" or Irish Analogue Compatible. People mostly didn't sell incompatible TVs. You assumed if the TV was in a Retail Shop it did what it said on the box.

Your view is very narrow.

It was SIMPLE to stick a label going forward from Summer 2008 saying
"Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish Digital TV". Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish Digital TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

Why are you not answering this, axer?

The Government advised Retailers in March 2008 to do this.

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

my understanding is none of them say "Irish digital ready".

They don't say they're not Irish digital TV ready either - that's the point.

BTW, why did you break up my quote ? The grey area point of my post was at the end of the example: 'a reasonable time'.

axer

watty wrote: »

What TV ever had "Irish Colour Ready" or Irish Analogue Compatible. People mostly didn't sell incompatible TVs. You assumed if the TV was in a Retail Shop it did what it said on the box.

It usually says on tvs that they can receive uhf/vhf etc. The TVs are fully compatible with with current Irish Television broadcasting system.

watty wrote: »

Your view is very narrow.

I am taking my view on the law, you are taking it on morals/ethics and then throwing in the law on top when it at best is far from clear on the situation.

axer

watty wrote: »

It was SIMPLE to stick a label going forward from Summer 2008 saying
"Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish TV". Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

Why are you not answering this, axer?

The Government advised Retailers in March 2008 to do this.

It is simple but my point has been that there was no legal obligation to do. Any government warning has no legal implications.

Why do you keep arguing on the side of morals like the sticker thing above when you know there was no legal obligation on them to put stickers on it. I agree from a moral/ethical point of view - I have always made this clear, I am just disagreeing (or at best saying the law is far from clear on this issue and my unqualified opinion is there is no evidence that consumers are legally entitled to redress when their TV no longer has an analogue signal to pick up) from a legal point of view.

axer

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

They don't say they're not Irish digital TV ready either - that's the point.

So you are saying lack of information is the same as giving the incorrect information? The TVs can pick up digital signals - there no denying that thus they are labeled digital. They also have no problem picking up RTE et al when purchased and at least for a significant period of time afterwards.

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

BTW, why did you break up my quote ? The grey area point of my post was at the end of the example: 'a reasonable time'.

a reasonable time does not apply to the parts above it. You are trying to lump all those things together e.g. guarantees etc along with that there are no time definitions and saying they are all grey areas just because the last part of your point is so I broke it down to highlight that the ONLY part that is a grey area the the part about how long something should last. The rest is black and white in consumer and contractual law.

Turbulent Bill

axer wrote: »

But the descriptions on those tvs are correct - it is the consumer's ignorance of what description they need for saorview that is the issue. Consumer law is far from clear and strict about this since it is not a typical scenario i.e. where a TV can pick up signal because signal is available and then 2 years later a third party turns off the signal thus the TV no longer can pick it up even though it has the capability to do so and it is not faulty. Far from clear in law.

As UK products their descriptions are correct, but in an Irish context it's not clear at all what their value is, and the onus is/was on Tesco Ireland to advertise it correctly for the market it's sold in. I think any judge would take a dim view of a large retailer selling a "digital" TV (and presumably highlighting it as superior to the analogue alternatives) to Joe Soap without fully disclosing its limitations. The introduction of Saorview should have been common knowledge to retailers even in 2009.

That said, the longer someone goes without looking for a refund/replacement, the worse their case.

watty

CEDA was specifically warned by Governemt in March 2008!

Pat Gleeson

axer wrote: »

a reasonable time does not apply to the parts above it. You are trying to lump all those things together.

I'm not trying to lump anything together. It was simply one example of a dispute that happens every day, and a grey area of consumer law - and grey area or no, how powerful that law is to consumers - if they use it.

It will be interesting to see how this develops over that next few months as people become more aware of DTT when officially launched. We can agree to disagree anyway can't we ? :-)

matt-dublin

a similar arguement is to be had about hd ready tvs almost.

some HD readys only produce 720i not 720p and 1020i/p

so by this arguement is someone who bought a hd ready tv that only produces 720i entitled to their money back? i don't think so.

lets also not forget that the TV would have clear information on the packaging of what it was and wasn't capable of. You can view the packaging on the shelf before you buy where in deed it would or wouldn't have said saorview etc.

lets not forget that digital ready just states that the tv is CAPABLE of recieving a digital signal, not necessarily an irish specific one. and I think the word capable is a very important one in this agruement.

were they specifically advertised as digital ready TVs? I seriously doubt it because they don't advertise digital ready TVs at the moment, they still advertise HD ready and Full HD but i've never seen anything on ther labels suggesting anything about digital or saorview.

power sh1tty have been selling digital ready phillips TVs for years which can't recieve an irish digital signal.

axer

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how this develops over that next few months as people become more aware of DTT when officially launched. We can agree to disagree anyway can't we ? :-)

Yes, we can agree to disagree. My only point was that people should not claim that the law is clear on this when it is far from it. There is nothing in law dealing with such a situation as this thus a judge will ultimately have to decide. Having said that people should try get their tvs exchanged if they realise soon after purchase but two years later? I dont think so.

RTE have really failed here since I believe they are just kicking off their awareness campaign now when it should have started before christmas due to the amount of TVs that would have been purchased.

STB

matt-dublin wrote: »

a similar arguement is to be had about hd ready tvs almost.

some HD readys only produce 720i not 720p and 1020i/p

so by this arguement is someone who bought a hd ready tv that only produces 720i entitled to their money back? i don't think so.

lets also not forget that the TV would have clear information on the packaging of what it was and wasn't capable of. You can view the packaging on the shelf before you buy where in deed it would or wouldn't have said saorview etc.

lets not forget that digital ready just states that the tv is CAPABLE of recieving a digital signal, not necessarily an irish specific one. and I think the word capable is a very important one in this agruement.

were they specifically advertised as digital ready TVs? I seriously doubt it because they don't advertise digital ready TVs at the moment, they still advertise HD ready and Full HD but i've never seen anything on ther labels suggesting anything about digital or saorview.

power sh1tty have been selling digital ready phillips TVs for years which can't recieve an irish digital signal.

It is in NO WAY similar. A tuner is the basic component of a Television. Next year we will be switching off analogue television in Ireland. Currently 1 in 4 people watch Terrestrial TV only. Hard to believe for those city slickers who like myself grew up with and were spoilt by having NTL/UPC.

So when those people who have bought these MPEG2 Freeview TVs discover that the digital tuner wont work they will will have nothing at all tunerwise next year UNLESS they sign up to a PAY service. Since when did an expensive item like a TV have a best before date of less than 2 years ?

Look these legal eagle arguements will not fly. You stock the right platform friendly product as they manage to do in every other European Country. It is not brain surgery.

For your information.
The DVB logo is the digital logo.

The Freeview logo is certification for UK terrestrial market. The technology used in Ireland is not the same. There have been warnings of this for a long time since the spec was first published for min requirements (2008). IT is known what the digital spec is here, it is the retailers responsibility to stock the right products otherwise they will have unhappy customers quite rightly shouting the odds at them in their shops.

I think we all know the motivation for stocking cheaply available warehoused stock from the UK that cant be sold in the UK because of the emergence of their move to DVB-T2 - not good enough, we, the so called ignorant paddies are not a dumping ground. Also I notice that some of these chains are offering TVs packaged with Sky - that doesnt require a genius to work out!

The price difference between compatible and cheap and useless TV's is ZERO (unless that is that you cant shift them in your home market).

IN the US they use ATSC TV tuners - specific to the US. Likewise they would not be compatible here.

Power City actually provide knowledgable information for the consumer unlike the rest who cant even put a simply bloody sign up to tell you what the TV can and cant do. They actual have Irish Digitable TV Ready signs on certain TVs.

Morality, legality, take what slant you want on it. It doesnt matter, retailers should not want the grief which they will encounter should they hoodwink customers. They also have a brand chain name to protect if they are a chain as do the manufacturers whose products they are stocking.

We get what we deserve when there are ignorant tree hugging people fighting stupid points of law arguements regarding technology that they dont know f all about, much like many of the untrustworthy fast buck merchants that are retailing this dumped incompatible stock in the first place.

Get a grip. I am a consumer. And I will make sure the right word gets out. So many people who dont want people to see what is free, isnt there !

watty

matt-dublin wrote: »

a similar arguement is to be had about hd ready tvs almost.

some HD readys only produce 720i not 720p and 1020i/p

so by this arguement is someone who bought a hd ready tv that only produces 720i entitled to their money back? i don't think so.

HD Ready means Displays ANY HD format input but native resolution is not full 1920 x1080 pixels.

FULL HD means native display is 1920x1080 pixels and all HD formats are displayed.

Sam Russell

The terms 'Freeview' and 'Freeview HD' are not relevant in Ireland, and have no bearing whatsoever. If a retailer claims anything to do with those systems, they should say that they are irrelevant, just as the French system 'TNT' and 'TNT HD' are irrelevant.

The retailer has an obligation, imo, to obscure all references to 'Freeview' on the boxes as, otherwise, they form part of the contract. It is reasonable for a customer buying a box that says they will receive '40 digital channels' that they should indeed 'receive 40 digital channels'. It is wholly unreasonable that they should understand that the UK only system of 'Freeview' has no relevance in this country.

For a retailer knowingly to sell goods that actually cannot work is clearly against the Sale of Goods Act, and the customer should be entitled to full recompense - repair, replace or refund. Repair in this case would be to substitute the tuner/decoder with a compatible one. Replace would be to replace with an equal or better TV that can receive digital TV (Saorview).

The term HD Ready, and FULL HD have been taken to describe various resolutions, but Digital refers to the decoding of digital transmissions, which in Irelands case is Saorview. The transmissions for this system have been going on, virtually unchanged, since 1st August 2008. I cannot see a judge being persuaded otherwise.

Let someone take a case and we will see.

watty

STB wrote: »

For your information.
The DVB logo is the digital logo.

The Freeview logo is certification for UK terrestrial market. The technology used in Ireland is not the same. There have been warnings of this for a long time (2008). IT is known what the digital spec is here, it is the retailers responsibility to stock the right products other wise they will have unhappy customers shouting the odds at them in their shops.

I think we all know the motivation for stocking cheaply available warehoused stock from the UK that cant be sold in the UK because of the mergence of their move to DVB-T2 - not good enough, we, the so called ignorant paddies are not a dumping ground. Also I notice that some of these chains are offering TVs packaged with Sky - cahoots!

The price difference between compatible and cheap and useless TV's is ZERO (unless that is that you cant shift them in your home market).

IN the US they use ATSC TV tuners - specific to the US. Likewise they would not be compatible here.

Since the relevant bodies informed in March 2008 why was the simple step of a corrective label to the Description not added?

"Analogue only, Incompatible with Irish Digital TV". Or even "Sold as Analogue TV, May not be compatible with Irish Digital TV", on Every TV package that had Digital on it.

There is no legal obligation to sell compatible TVs. There is a legal obligation to correct misleading packaging information.

The issue of providing actually compatible TVs didn't arise for 2008 & 2009. But that separate issue arises now.

STB

matt-dublin wrote: »

lets also not forget that the TV would have clear information on the packaging of what it was and wasn't capable of. You can view the packaging on the shelf before you buy where in deed it would or wouldn't have said saorview etc.

What is your expectation in Ireland especially if the box says 40+ Freeview Stations?



ONE item out of 7 TV's was actually compatible with Irish Digital TV (basics) from a recent visit to Tescos. All the other items were old dumped stock with Freeview plastered all over them and how mant stations you would receive.

Even the currys.ie website has refrences to Freeview all over it! People now think it exists over here!

axer

Sam Russell wrote: »

For a retailer knowingly to sell goods that actually cannot work is clearly against the Sale of Goods Act, and the customer should be entitled to full recompense - repair, replace or refund. Repair in this case would be to substitute the tuner/decoder with a compatible one. Replace would be to replace with an equal or better TV that can receive digital TV (Saorview).

Those TVs do work and will pick up RTE et al for the next 2 years so at the time of creating the contract between consumer and seller, the item works and is fit for purpose.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let someone take a case and we will see.

Exactly or some organisation such as the NCA should make a clear statement on this issue.

watty

axer wrote: »

RTE have really failed here since I believe they are just kicking off their awareness campaign now when it should have started before christmas due to the amount of TVs that would have been purchased.

Since before Christmas on RTE Website, Official Saorview Website and SaorTv.info

Buying a digital set-top box or integrated digital television for Christmas 2010

If looking to make a purchase in the immediate future consumers should seek advice from their specialist retailer or manufacturer.

Consumers should be aware that the majority* of UK "Freeview" boxes and iDTVs will not decode the SAORVIEW service (as they use the MPEG 2 standard) and that unapproved receivers may not be fully compatible with all aspects of the SAORVIEW service.

http://www.rte.ie/saorview/receiving.html

(my emphasis)

[* Some Freeview sets are pan-European models and 100% compatible, though not certified on the Ireland Country setting]


12th December 2010
http://www.saortv.info/2010/12/14/a-tv-is-not-just-for-christmas/

Fine Gael TD and consumer protection spokeswoman Olivia Mitchell warned shoppers buying a new digital TV this Christmas to make sure the set is MPEG4-compatible.

Most good retailers are advising customers accordingly; however, TVs which are only MPEG2 compatible may still be available for sale in some shops, Buying the wrong TV now may mean viewers having to buy a separate set-top box in order to receive the new Irish service.

But even in November 2010 after soft launch of Service on 29th October 2010 most retailers not labelling TVs correctly. Despite Official publicity and specifications since February 2008!

axer

watty wrote: »

There is no legal obligation to sell compatible TVs. There is a legal obligation to correct misleading packaging information.

Both of these statements are correct but neither fall under the sale of goods act, thus the same remedies don't apply e.g. refund etc. I believe the latter may falls under the Consumer Protection Act 2007. I dont know a lot about that Act but I believe it doesn't give right to a rescission of a contract but that the retailer can be fined. Again I am not sure if that act applies in this situation maybe someone more knowledgeable on this act than me can say.