WARRANTY OUT..MY RIGHTS

brando75

HI ALL,
BOUGHT A 40'' TV IN FEB 2012.. COST 770 EURO.. 3 WEEKS AGO SCREEN JUST FAILED OF ITS OWN ACCORD.. RANG THE WELL KNOWN RETAILER WHO SENT ME TO WELL KNOWN MANUFACTURER AS I WAS OUT OF MY 1 YEAR WARRANTY.. MANUFACTURER DOESN'T SUPPLY THE SCREENS FOR THIS TV ANYMORE SO ITS NOT REPAIRABLE.. HOWEVER AFTER PLENTY OF CALLS TO MANUFACTURER OVER 3 WEEKS THEY'VE AGREED TO BUY BACK TV FOR 335 EURO...RETAILER HAS TRIED TO WASH THEIR HANDS OF THE ISSUE..
AFTER CONTACTING THE CONSUMERS ASSOC THEY RECKON MY CASE IS WITH THE RETAILER..STATUTORY RIGHTS AFFECTED AS GOODS WERE NOT MERCHANTABLE QUALITY..
ANYBODY HAVE THIS SAME ISSUE? NOT SURE WHAT WAY SMALL CLAIMS GENERALLY RULES IN THESE CASES?? SHOULD I ACCEPT 335 AND RUN OR HOLD OUT FOR A REPLACEMENT TV OF SIMILAR SPEC OR A FULL REFUND??
THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR ANY INPUT

The Ritz

Mod Comment:


Moved here from Home Entertainment - someone here may be able to give some advice to this poster.


Thanks,


Ritz.

salamanca22

Offering a 50% refund after a 2 and a half year period in my eyes is fairly reasonable.

If you don't think so you can take them to small claims court. Be forewarned though in no way will you ever get a full refund.

Deub

32 months after purchasing, I would gladly accept the 335€. It is half what you paid. You wouldn't have sold it at this price.

L1011

€335 is possibly more than you'd get in an SCC case at this point, and without the hassle of actually getting paid from it. Take it and buy a different manufacturers TV.

Beano

Put 50 or 60 euro to that 335 and you could buy a new tv. a very good offer from the manufacturer

Xzen

Your statutory rights follow the standard warranty of 1 year on most electrical items.
The only exceptions to his are:

- if the manufacturer provides a warranty greater than 12 months.
- if the defect occurred before the 12 months and you (a) reported it to manufacture or retailer before warranty expiry (b) didn't report it but can prove the defect occurred before warranty expiry.
- if you can prove that the TV was fundamentally defective from the get go. If there has been a very high rate of defects for that model you could claim there is a general defect with a batch or range of the same model. Also if there was ever a recall by manufacturer for that TV or a major component inside.

I doubt a small claims court would find in your favour after such a significant time.

Beyond that, not a lot you can do and considering the offers made I would be very happy getting 50% back, as others said above. I'd like to see you try that with Pixmania or some other retailer

jimmii

Surprised you got any offer from them! It must just be a gesture of goodwill offer I would take it and get another one. Its out of warranty that's end of story really you are lucky to find a company willing to give you anything.

slimjimmc

Xzen wrote: »

Your statutory rights follow the standard warranty of 1 year on most electrical items.
The only exceptions to his are:

- if the manufacturer provides a warranty greater than 12 months.
- if the defect occurred before the 12 months and you (a) reported it to manufacture or retailer before warranty expiry (b) didn't report it but can prove the defect occurred before warranty expiry.
- if you can prove that the TV was fundamentally defective from the get go. If there has been a very high rate of defects for that model you could claim there is a general defect with a batch or range of the same model. Also if there was ever a recall by manufacturer for that TV or a major component inside.

I doubt a small claims court would find in your favour after such a significant time.

Beyond that, not a lot you can do and considering the offers made I would be very happy getting 50% back, as others said above. I'd like to see you try that with Pixmania or some other retailer

If you think your statutory rights are limited to 1 year then you are mistaken. Throughout the EU you have a minimum of 2 years protection and in Ireland there is no specified period after which your rights expire, other than having max 6 years to make a claim (Statute of Limitations).
Also, your rights are not dependent on any guarantee or mass failures/recalls. Your TV could fail after the guarantee has expired and you would still be entitled to seek redress from the seller.

The SCC will consider what is reasonable and base it's decision on that. If they find that the TV should reasonably last 5 years (for example) and the manufacturer's offer is inadequate then they will very likely find in the OP's favour. Of course the OP would have to take his SCC claim against the seller not the manufacturer as the manufacturer has met it's obligations (1 year guarantee).

sandra06

brando75 wrote: »

HI ALL,
BOUGHT A 40'' TV IN FEB 2012.. COST 770 EURO.. 3 WEEKS AGO SCREEN JUST FAILED OF ITS OWN ACCORD.. RANG THE WELL KNOWN RETAILER WHO SENT ME TO WELL KNOWN MANUFACTURER AS I WAS OUT OF MY 1 YEAR WARRANTY.. MANUFACTURER DOESN'T SUPPLY THE SCREENS FOR THIS TV ANYMORE SO ITS NOT REPAIRABLE.. HOWEVER AFTER PLENTY OF CALLS TO MANUFACTURER OVER 3 WEEKS THEY'VE AGREED TO BUY BACK TV FOR 335 EURO...RETAILER HAS TRIED TO WASH THEIR HANDS OF THE ISSUE..
AFTER CONTACTING THE CONSUMERS ASSOC THEY RECKON MY CASE IS WITH THE RETAILER..STATUTORY RIGHTS AFFECTED AS GOODS WERE NOT MERCHANTABLE QUALITY..
ANYBODY HAVE THIS SAME ISSUE? NOT SURE WHAT WAY SMALL CLAIMS GENERALLY RULES IN THESE CASES?? SHOULD I ACCEPT 335 AND RUN OR HOLD OUT FOR A REPLACEMENT TV OF SIMILAR SPEC OR A FULL REFUND??
THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR ANY INPUT

not sure if this helps i had same prob with a washing machine ,spoke to cusumers rights they told me to sent a letter to retailer and told me what to put in letter (biggest point was expected life of product washing machine is about 4 yrs ) got a full refund from shop a week later do you still have receipt ? if you do you at least get a replacement product try comsumers rights again

foggy_lad

you should deal only with the retailer as your contract is with them and you have no business or contract with the manufacturer!

your statutory rights provide for a remedy for a period of up to 6years for faults etc or if the goods are not of reasonable quality or not reasonably durable given their purpose and price paid for them.

any €700 TV should last much longer than 2.5years without serious fault unless it was in a children's play room and subjected to having light toys bounced off it for that long.

faults and damage caused by the consumer(yourself) are not covered by statutory rights!

any warranty or guarantee provided by the shopkeeper or manufacturer is in addition to your statutory rights and can be ignored if you so chose.

as stated write to the shop outlining the issue and asking them to provide a remedy in the form of a repair or replacement or refund as they are obliged to provide by law.

salamanca22

foggy_lad wrote: »

you should deal only with the retailer as your contract is with them and you have no business or contract with the manufacturer!

your statutory rights provide for a remedy for a period of up to 6years for faults etc or if the goods are not of reasonable quality or not reasonably durable given their purpose and price paid for them.

any €700 TV should last much longer than 2.5years without serious fault unless it was in a children's play room and subjected to having light toys bounced off it for that long.

faults and damage caused by the consumer(yourself) are not covered by statutory rights!

any warranty or guarantee provided by the shopkeeper or manufacturer is in addition to your statutory rights and can be ignored if you so chose.

as stated write to the shop outlining the issue and asking them to provide a remedy in the form of a repair or replacement or refund as they are obliged to provide by law.

They have offered a refund. At this stage they are not entitled to a full refund and if they brought a SCC case against the shop they would be down the SCC fee and would likely be awarded less than the shop has offered.

ScouseMouse

jimmii wrote: »

Surprised you got any offer from them! It must just be a gesture of goodwill offer I would take it and get another one. Its out of warranty that's end of story really you are lucky to find a company willing to give you anything.

Cobblers!

Warranty is only a promise from the manufacturer. Your irish consumer rights run rings around that. Have a good read of consumer issues, there may even be a sticky for it.

JimsAlterEgo

salamanca22 wrote: »

They have offered a refund. At this stage they are not entitled to a full refund and if they brought a SCC case against the shop they would be down the SCC fee and would likely be awarded less than the shop has offered.

they can also replace or repair - both of which would probably give a better resolution for the OP

donutheadhomer

slimjimmc wrote: »

If you think your statutory rights are limited to 1 year then you are mistaken. Throughout the EU you have a minimum of 2 years protection and in Ireland there is no specified period after which your rights expire, other than having max 6 years to make a claim (Statute of Limitations).
Also, your rights are not dependent on any guarantee or mass failures/recalls. Your TV could fail after the guarantee has expired and you would still be entitled to seek redress from the seller.

The SCC will consider what is reasonable and base it's decision on that. If they find that the TV should reasonably last 5 years (for example) and the manufacturer's offer is inadequate then they will very likely find in the OP's favour. Of course the OP would have to take his SCC claim against the seller not the manufacturer as the manufacturer has met it's obligations (1 year guarantee).

Is it not up to the consumer to prove/show the fault and that it was a manufacturing fault

dudara

donutheadhomer wrote: »

Is it not up to the consumer to prove/show the fault and that it was a manufacturing fault

No, I don't believe so. IMO it's unreasonable to put the onus of proof on a consumer (a regular Joe Soap). A consumer can claim a fault, but retailers/manufacturers are entitled to investigate to determine if a fault truly exists.

brando75

sandra06 wrote: »

not sure if this helps i had same prob with a washing machine ,spoke to cusumers rights they told me to sent a letter to retailer and told me what to put in letter (biggest point was expected life of product washing machine is about 4 yrs ) got a full refund from shop a week later do you still have receipt ? if you do you at least get a replacement product try comsumers rights again

How old was your washing machine when it broke ? Was it out of warranty? And where did you get the 4 year life expectancy from? I do have a receipt

brando75

Deub wrote: »

32 months after purchasing, I would gladly accept the 335€. It is half what you paid. You wouldn't have sold it at this price.

I don't sell 2nd hand televisions. This is not the reason i bought it.

Beano

brando75 wrote: »

I don't sell 2nd hand televisions. This is not the reason i bought it.

well then refuse their offer and go to small claims court.

foggy_lad

they were offered a sum of money by the manufacturer whom they have no contract or business with!

they have not been offered anything by the retailer who is legally obliged to deal with them, in fact the retailer passed them off to the manufacturer and basically refused to deal with them citing some rubbish about some shop warranty being out of date.

op you should write to the retailer as stated above and also download the forms from the small claims court website. taking a case which you have a very good chance of winning will cost you €25. the courts do not like when large companies wash their hands of their responsibilities to their customers.

Beano

foggy_lad wrote: »

they were offered a sum of money by the manufacturer whom they have no contract or business with!

they have not been offered anything by the retailer who is legally obliged to deal with them, in fact the retailer passed them off to the manufacturer and basically refused to deal with them citing some rubbish about some shop warranty being out of date.

op you should write to the retailer as stated above and also download the forms from the small claims court website. taking a case which you have a very good chance of winning will cost you €25. the courts do not like when large companies wash their hands of their responsibilities to their customers.

Define "winning"? Do you think that the court award will be greater than they have already been offered?

JimsAlterEgo

Beano wrote: »

Define "winning"? Do you think that the court award will be greater than they have already been offered?

court doesnt always award money, IMO a fairer award would be a replair or replacement as doesnt leave consumer out of pocket

L1011

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

court doesnt always award money, IMO a fairer award would be a replair or replacement as doesnt leave consumer out of pocket

At this time out from sale its very unlikely that they'll award that. 50% is pretty much what I'd expect them to award, especially considering the replacement cost is dropping like a stone too.

Beano

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

court doesnt always award money, IMO a fairer award would be a replair or replacement as doesnt leave consumer out of pocket

read the op. the model is discontinued. You think they should be given a brand new tv after 2.5 years?

JimsAlterEgo

But should the consumer be out of pocket? Dont see why time matters!

brando75

Beano wrote: »

read the op. the model is discontinued. You think they should be given a brand new tv after 2.5 years?

Yes. I absolutely feel i should be given a new tv or full refund. It is the retailers LEGAL OBLIGATION to sell goods of MERCHANTABLE QUALITY given their price and description. Is it reasonable to pay 770 euro for a tv which is broken and unrepairable due to manufacturing fault after 2.5 years? A replacement model of the same spec is not beyond the retailers legal obligation.

Beano

well best of luck with getting a full refund. Godspeed.

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Yes. I absolutely feel i should be given a new tv or full refund. It is the retailers LEGAL OBLIGATION to sell goods of MERCHANTABLE QUALITY given their price and description. Is it reasonable to pay 770 euro for a tv which is broken and unrepairable due to manufacturing fault after 2.5 years? A replacement model of the same spec is not beyond the retailers legal obligation.

But reality and history on here suggests that in all likelyhood in a Small Claims proceeding, you aren't going to get full value. That is your only realistic legal recourse in the first place.

You still haven't proven its due to a manufacturing fault either, remember.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

But reality and history on here suggests that in all likelyhood in a Small Claims proceeding, you aren't going to get full value. That is your only realistic legal recourse in the first place.

You still haven't proven its due to a manufacturing fault either, remember.

Sony have admitted this is a manufacturing fault. Television was with there recommended repairers. Who incidentally told me a new screen would cost 570 euro. But the screen is discontinued. However they suggested i give them the 570 in return for a tv. When i asked what tv?? they said they couldn't say until i accepted the offer!!!!
Is there history on here about small claims in these matters. Please reference me

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Sony have admitted this is a manufacturing fault. Television was with there recommended repairers. Who incidentally told me a new screen would cost 570 euro. But the screen is discontinued. However they suggested i give them the 570 in return for a tv. When i asked what tv?? they said they couldn't say until i accepted the offer!!!!
Is there history on here about small claims in these matters. Please reference me

That's the first time you've said that - in what way have they done so?

Just use the search function - the standard is for you to get a reduced amount for the age of the TV. Three years is a relatively long time for a large screen TV and the replacement price has also fallen so the remaining value in the TV is a hell of a lot less than what you paid for it. Consumer rights are not a new-for-old home insurance policy.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

That's the first time you've said that - in what way have they done so?

Just use the search function - the standard is for you to get a reduced amount for the age of the TV. Three years is a relatively long time for a large screen TV and the replacement price has also fallen so the remaining value in the TV is a hell of a lot less than what you paid for it. Consumer rights are not a new-for-old home
insurance policy.

Im not looking for new for old. Im looking for replacement for faulty

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Im not looking for new for old. Im looking for replacement for faulty

That's precisely the same thing. Your TV is old, not new.

Where and how did Sony "admit" it was a manufacturing fault?

slimjimmc

OP, your statutory rights are with the seller. Many sellers will initially refer you to the manufacturer and people tend to go along unawares. Your rights entitle you to a repair (not feasible in this case), a replacement, or if neither is feasible, a refund.
Note though that it's reasonable for the value of your TV after 2.5 years trouble free use to be taken into account when determining a replacement or refund. You are not entitled to a remedy which is disproportionate.

I suggest you go back top the seller and see what they will offer you. Only then you can consider if the seller's offer or the manufacturer's offer is acceptable or neither. You don't have to accept either offer but you will only be able to take the seller to the SCC. If you feel you can do better by pursuing the seller you could send them a written request. Give them a reasonable deadline after which you will go to the SCC unless a satisfactory settlement is agreed.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

That's precisely the same thing. Your TV is old, not new.

Where and how did Sony "admit" it was a manufacturing fault?

Faulty is not the same as old..what dictionary you working off?? Sony rep has admitted over the phone in recorded calls that television has manufacturers fault and offered me 335 as a buyback option

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Faulty is not the same as old..what dictionary you working off?? Sony rep has admitted over the phone in recorded calls that television has manufacturers fault and offered me 335 as a buyback option

In this case, you are trying to get a new TV for an old TV - there is no other way to avoid that.

If you can get a recording of Sony admitting it is a manufacturing fault, by all means take an SCC case but don't expect to get any more money or get it quickly either - and you certainly won't get a replacement TV.

You came on here looking for advise, but now you don't like the answer it appears you don't want to accept it.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

In this case, you are trying to get a new TV for an old TV - there is no other way to avoid that.

If you can get a recording of Sony admitting it is a manufacturing fault, by all means take an SCC case but don't expect to get any more money or get it quickly either - and you certainly won't get a replacement TV.

You came on here looking for advise, but now
you don't like the answer it appears you don't want to accept it.

Ok, your advice is don't expect more money or replacement tv..I'll take that advice on board..thank you
I don't accept old=faulty...im not taking a 14'' black and white portable my grandmother bought 30 years ago back to the retailer demanding they swap it for something new..

eqwjewoiujqorj

You have 2 choices.

1. Take the 335 and buy a 40" Sony.
This one is 429 at Harvey Norman. Link
Is it a better spec than the one you have?
You'll be out 94 euro but you should get it sorted quicker than option 2.

2. Bring retailer to the small claims court at cost of 25 euro.
The judge will probably agree that it's reasonable to expect a 770 euro Sony tv to last longer than 2 year 8 months.
What will he rule - shop must fix tv? / give you a similar specd model? / shop must give you a partial refund?
If the retailer doesn't turn up and you make a claim for 770, you might do better.

Personally, I'd take the 335, this woman paid 981 for a tv and got 300 from the small claims court. tv was 2.5 yrs old.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77624975

I am in a similar situation with Komplett, court date on monday 2/20.
They haven't sent in notice of intention to defend so I am left wondering if they'll turn up at all and I have to travel from Limerick to Dublin for court.
Bought Samsung tv just over 2 years old, switched it on one day and the picture was all blurry, horizontal lines, goes dark intermittently, completely unwatchable. Paid €981 for it.
Went through the usual hoops with Komplett, told me it was outside 2 year warranty etc.
Long story short - small claims court route and court date on monday.
Just wondering if you have any tips, advice re: Kompett, court?


Hoping that the judge will agree that the tv is not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods act and that the normal life expectancy for a tv at that price should be longer than 2.5 years.
Will just give the facts and see how it goes.

Just posting the update on our case against komplett as we have only received the judges decision today, 15th march.
We went to court on the 20th of February, there was a representative from komplett there so the judge heard their side. Komplett argued that the tv was out of warranty so they had no obligation.
The judge told us that she could not make a decision at that time and the registrar would telephone us with the decision.
Got a call today that we were awarded €300 based on depreciation of the tv and I assume that the same model would be cheaper in 2012.


I am satisfied that the judge agreed in our favour and I think the reason the judge awarded €300 is because if we had to buy a similar spec tv today it would cost less than the original price in 2008.
When I say a similiar spec tv, it would be a Samsung brand with the same specs.
But I guess the fact that we had to travel to Dublin, take day off work, cost of fuel etc, if I'm honest I thought we would have gotten more but at least it's settled now.
I will leave it at that and would still encourage anyone to pursue their rights through the small claims court if you have to and at least if enough people stand up for their consumer rights then company's like komplett might improve their after sales/customer service.

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

I don't accept old=faulty...]

No, old = old.

Your TV is old, it is not new anymore and you're expecting a new one as a replacement. This is not how consumer rights work here - the time and usage you got from the TV have a value which will rightly be considerd.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

No, old = old.

Your TV is old, it is not new anymore and you're expecting a new one as a replacement. This is not how consumer rights work here - the time and usage you got from the TV have a value which will rightly be considerd.

Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..

Your TV may be faulty, but it is still old. You are acting as if the two are incompatible with each other for no good reason

You have received three years use from it, which is a good proportion of its reasonable life. TVs become obsolete these days, backlight bulbs have a finite life, etc.

Its obvious Sony realise that there are obligations or else they wouldn't have offered you anything - but its pretty much all you can expect to get from the SSC. They are in no way obliged to provide you with a new TV and the sooner you realise this the better.

Are you just going to continue to argue against advice you don't like rather than accept it? Take the money, buy a new TV - for not much more - and avoid Sony if you're that annoyed by it.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

Your TV may be faulty, but it is still old. You are acting as if the two are incompatible with each other for no good reason

You have received three years use from it, which is a good proportion of its reasonable life. TVs become obsolete these days, backlight bulbs have a finite life, etc.

Its obvious Sony realise that there are obligations or else they wouldn't have offered you anything - but its pretty much all you can expect to get from the SSC. They are in no way obliged to provide you with a new TV and the sooner you realise this the better.

Are you just going to continue to argue against advice you don't like rather than accept it? Take the money, buy a new TV - for not much more - and avoid Sony if you're that annoyed by it.

Well i argued against the advice the retailer gave me which was...very sorry, out of warranty, go away, nothing can be done..also advice the repairers gave me..which was don't ring manufacturer they will do nothing for you...i argue if i feel i have a point and at this moment im 335 better off for it

L1011

brando75 wrote: »

Well i argued against the advice the retailer gave me which was...very sorry, out of warranty, go away, nothing can be done..also advice the repairers gave me..which was don't ring manufacturer they will do nothing for you...i argue if i feel i have a point and at this moment im 335 better off for it

And now you're getting advice from neutrals with experience of the process and you still won't accept its valid.

If you want to waste a month or more with no TV and a extremely high chance of less cash, go for it - but its your own time and money you're wasting.

brando75

L1011 wrote: »

And now you're getting advice from neutrals with experience of the process and you still won't accept its valid.

If you want to waste a month or more with no TV and a extremely high chance of less cash, go for it - but its your own time and money you're wasting.

Ok. Thanks for that advice.

foggy_lad

L1011 wrote: »

50% is pretty much what I'd expect them to award, especially considering the replacement cost is dropping like a stone too.

The replacement must be of the same specs etc but if a refund is being given it is based on the original cost and not any replacement cost.

Beano wrote: »

read the op. the model is discontinued. You think they should be given a brand new tv after 2.5 years?

The small claims court is there to make these hard decisions but yes I think the op should be given a new television purely on the fact that the retailer has treated them so badly by telling them to go to the manufacturer when they were obliged to deal with the faulty tv.

L1011 wrote: »

Just use the search function - the standard is for you to get a reduced amount for the age of the TV. Three years is a relatively long short time for a large screen TV and the replacement price has also fallen so the remaining value in the TV is a hell of a lot less than what you paid for it. Consumer rights are not a new-for-old home insurance policy.

The "standard" is not always the reality!

eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »

You have 2 choices.

1. Take the 335 and buy a 40" Sony.
This one is 429 at Harvey Norman. Link
Is it a better spec than the one you have?
You'll be out 94 euro but you should get it sorted quicker than option 2.

2. Bring retailer to the small claims court at cost of 25 euro.
The judge will probably agree that it's reasonable to expect a 770 euro Sony tv to last longer than 2 year 8 months.
What will he rule - shop must fix tv? / give you a similar specd model? / shop must give you a partial refund?
If the retailer doesn't turn up and you make a claim for 770, you might do better.

Personally, I'd take the 335, this woman paid 981 for a tv and got 300 from the small claims court. tv was 2.5 yrs old.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77624975

It is not stated in this case you quoted whether the tv was repairable or was beyond repair due to parts not being available.

dudara

brando75 wrote: »

Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..

Everything there is correct. BUT you have had use of the TV for several years, and in the meantime, TVs of comparable specifications have become cheaper. Depreciation IS taken into account.

Your consumer rights do lie with the retailer. But in this case the manufacturer have made you an offer (which isn't bad IMO). It's up to you to decide on the effort/hassle.

EganTheMan

Check this out:

EU Directive 1999/44/EC. Check, in particular, page 7: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'

The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule.


I am not a "legal head" but I had problems with my iPhone, the other day, and the guy in the phone shop told me that there are very strong rights under EU Law for products that didn't last as long as you would expect them to.

Hope this helps . . .

L1011

foggy_lad wrote: »

The "standard" is not always the reality!

You have very little experience of large flat panels, I take it, with your inaccurate "correction" there.

3 years is a hefty proportion of the reasonable expected service life of a large TV - this has always been the case, less so with CRTs but it is with panels (LCD or plasma) and other forms (retroprojection).

My office would have probably 20 large panels and there may be one which is older than our office move (2009). There was another until last week but the backlight went. Lots of components in them have finite lifespans. In a home environment I would expect them to last a little longer - but I wouldn't realistically expect a 6 year old panel to work without having needed repair. You get exceptions, of course.

EganTheMan wrote: »

EU Directive 1999/44/EC.

Not transcribed as-is to Irish law as our existing protections were deemed stronger.

sandra06

brando75 wrote: »

How old was your washing machine when it broke ? Was it out of warranty? And where did you get the 4 year life expectancy from? I do have a receipt

it was a month outside warranty 2 yr warranty ,,,when i rang the comsumer rights they told me the life expectancy was four yrs just contact them they have a template on their web page that you copy and send to shop

brando75

So just a quick update on how the case finished. I argued a little further with Sony and ended up receiving 430 euro from them. I then rang the retailer and argued with them about the terrible quality tv they had sold me. I reminded them of their obligation under my statutory rights. They ended up giving me approx 33% discount on a tv with a price of 445 after discount. Also received a 5year warranty with new tv. All in all not a bad result. For 15 euro, some arguing and a headache i got an upgraded tv with better spec and a 5 yr warranty.

greasepalm

yes reasonable life was very short for you,all tvs i have long life over 10 yrs and the hd was a killer with a scart lead

salamanca22

brando75 wrote: »

ALWAYS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND ALWAYS ARGUE THEM. EVEN WHEN YOUR TOLD NOT TO!!!!

It was nothing got to do with your rights, you were just enough of a pain to them that they gave you some incredible good will. Good on the shop.